UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6501
BRIAN K. JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:04-cv-01087-LMB)
Submitted: August 25, 2006 Decided: September 5, 2006
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian K. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Brian K. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as an unauthorized
successive petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory
and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.
257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
229 (1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
May 2, 2005. The notice of appeal was executed on February 15,
2006. The district court improperly authorized Jones’ belated
notice of appeal, as it was filed more than 180 days after the
entry of the district court’s order. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(6)(B). Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to seasonably obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we deny Jones’s motion for a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -