UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7361
WILLIE J. WHITE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick
Correctional Institution; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (4:05-cv-02757-CMC)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 8, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie J. White, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Derrick K.
McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Willie J. White seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely.
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 orders denying his § 2254 petition
and his motion for reconsideration were entered on the docket on
May 23, 2006 and June 20, 2006, respectively. The notice of appeal
was filed on July 21, 2006.* Because White failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -