Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0910-01.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

Roger D. NARAGON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Warden; Director, Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-7489.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 18, 2003.
    Decided Jan. 22, 2004.
    Roger D. Naragon, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, SHEDD; and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. ■
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert Naragon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and denying his motion to reopen the time for filing an appeal. 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. Director, Dep’t of Corrs., 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 denying Naragon’s petition was entered on the docket on June 9,. 2003. Naragon asserts he received the district court’s order on August 7, 2003. He filed a motion to reopen the appeal period on August 19, 2003, one day beyond the period in which he could move to reopen. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6), (c). Because Naragon failed to file a timely notice of appeal and failed to timely move for reopening of the appeal period, we-dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.