UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

EDUARD LORENZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;

No. 97-6922

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; AUGUSTA

CORRECTIONAL CENTER; LONNIE M.

SAUNDERS, Warden,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-1789)

Submitted: September 30, 1997

Decided: October 29, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Eduard Lorenz, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's denials of his petition

filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), his

motions to strike the Appellee's motion to dismiss, and his application for an enlargement of time for filing a motion for relief under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Appellant's appeal from the order denying both

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his motion to strike is

untimely and is dismissed.

The district court denied Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas

corpus and his motion to strike the Appellee's motion to dismiss by

order entered April 9, 1996. Appellant had thirty days from that date

within which to file a timely notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P.

4(a). This time period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." See Browder

v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978).

On April 21, 1997, Appellant filed a Motion for an Enlargement of

Time, seeking an extension of the period within which he might file

what he labeled a Motion for Revision, which was denied by the district court on April 23, 1997. On May 2, 1997, Appellant filed a

Motion for Injunctive Relief and Other Relief, in which he complained the prison officials were interfering with his access to legal

research materials. On May 8, 1997, Appellant filed a Motion for

Revision. The district court construed this motion as one under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b); Rule 60(b) motions do not toll the time required by

Rule 4(a) for filing a timely notice of appeal from the underlying

judgment and order. See Browder, 434 U.S. at 263 n.7.

The district court denied Appellant's Motion for Revision and the

Motion for Injunctive Relief in an order entered May 19, 1997, by

which date the period had expired for appealing the April 9 order

denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the motion to

 2
strike. Notwithstanding the expiration of the appeal period, Appellant

noted an appeal on May 31, 1997. Consequently, Appellant's appeal

from that order is untimely and must be dismissed.

Appellant's Rule 60(b) Motion for Revision challenged the district

court's conclusion that Appellant had not exhausted his state court

remedies prior to seeking habeas corpus relief. We review the district

court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See

National Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262, 265 (4th Cir.

1993). The record discloses that Appellant's conviction was affirmed

by the Virginia Court of Appeals in 1995. His petition to appeal to

the Supreme Court of Virginia was also denied in 1995. In January

1996, Lorenz filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district

court, which was dismissed without prejudice for failing to exhaust

state remedies. In addition, Appellant twice unsuccessfully petitioned

the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus.

He never presented the claims he now raises in the habeas corpus

petition to any Virginia state court, either on direct or collateral

review. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying, for want of exhaustion, Appellant's petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. See United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th

Cir. 1982).

We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as untimely the

appeal from the district court's April 9, 1997 order. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the district court's May 19, 1997,

order denying Appellant's Motion for Revision and his Motion for

Injunctive Relief. We deny Appellant's motion in this court to supplement the record on 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

 3