UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7034
JAMES DONALD PRITCHETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-98-123-R)
Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: March 15, 1999
Before ERVIN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Donald Pritchett, Appellant Pro Se. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr.,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James D. Pritchett seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 1998) and his motion for reconsideration. As to the
denial of his § 2254 petition, Pritchett’s notice of appeal is
untimely, and we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Pritchett had
thirty days to note an appeal from the district court’s May 28,
1998 order. His notice of appeal was dated July 8, 1998, which is
beyond the thirty-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 46(a)
(1). Pritchett’s failure to note a timely appeal or to obtain an
extension of the appeal period deprives us of jurisdiction to re-
view the May 28 order. Because Pritchett’s motion for reconsid-
eration was filed more than ten days after the May 28 order, it did
not toll the appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). As for
the court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration, we have
reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss the appeal as to both orders. Pritchett v.
Angelone, No. CA-98-123-R (W.D. Va. May 28 & July 1, 1998). 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