Case ID: f-appx_10/html/0146-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Allen W. CRAWFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 00-7181.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 17, 2001.
    Decided May 22, 2001.
    
      Allen W. Crawford, pro se.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Allen W. Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000) petition as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Crawford’s 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, see Fed.R.App .P. 4(a)(1), 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. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 12, 1999. Crawford’s notice of appeal was filed on November 24, 1999. Because Crawford failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, 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. 
      
       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 given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).