Case Name: Warner HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-25
Citations: 91 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 03-7331
Parties: Warner HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
Warner HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7331.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 23, 2004.
Decided: March 25, 2004.
Warner Hill, Appellant pro se.
Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Warner Hill appeals the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and dismissing his case with prejudice. 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, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corr., 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 June 18, 2003. Hill's notice of appeal was filed on July 24, 2003, nearly a week after the expiration of the appeal period. Hill failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period. We accordingly 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
Because Hill is a pro se inmate, his petition is deemed filed on July 24, 2003, the day he signed it. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).