Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06249/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06249-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ross Allen Berryman
Appellant
Randy Lee
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6249

ROSS ALLEN BERRYMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT RANDY LEE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,

Senior District Judge. (5:00-cv-00058-GCM)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ross Allen Berryman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6249 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/30/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*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 properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the

court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ross Allen Berryman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

October 30, 2000. The notice of appeal was filed on January 8,

2008.* Because Berryman failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

Appeal: 08-6249 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/30/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 08-6249 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/30/2008 Pg: 3 of 3