UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6567
JAMES R. BENNINGTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
BOB WARD; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, The Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-95-1612-2-20AJ)
Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James R. Bennington, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal
period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an
extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day
period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to
relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established
by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.
Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting
United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district
court entered its order on December 19, 1995; Appellant's notice of
appeal was filed on March 26, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a
timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives
this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. To the extent
that Appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause to ap-
peal and "Motion for Notice of Right to Appeal" could be construed
as a notice of appeal, that notice is timely. However, the district
court properly determined that Appellant's ineffective assistance
of counsel claim lacked merit, and that his remaining claims are
procedurally barred. Bennington v. Ward, No. CA-95-1612-2-20AJ
(D.S.C. Dec. 19, 1995). We therefore deny a certificate of probable
cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability
is required, we deny such a certificate and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2