Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06325/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06325-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Titus Mil-Quigless Cotten
Appellant
Marvin Polk
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6325

TITUS MIL-QUIGLESS COTTEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MARVIN POLK, Warden of Central Prison,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:06-hc-02119-H)

Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Titus Mil-Quigless Cotten, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe

DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6325 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/25/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
*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:

Titus Mil-Quigless Cotten seeks to appeal the district

court’s judgment 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

August 23, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on February 25,

2008.* Because Cotten 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

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 08-6325 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/25/2008 Pg: 2 of 2