Case ID: f-appx_30/html/0102-01.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

Eugene C. NICHOLAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 01-7907.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 14, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 27, 2002.
    Eugene C. Nicholas, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Eugene C. Nicholas seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Nicholas’ 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 September 27, 2001. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on November 1, 2001. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 Nicholas' 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).