Case Name: Raymond David ROBINSON, 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: 2002-09-30
Citations: 46 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 02-7006
Parties: Raymond David ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 728–729

Head Matter:
Raymond David ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7006.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 19, 2002.
Decided Sept. 30, 2002.
Raymond David Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Raymond David Robinson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant's 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), 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 Corrections, 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 May 17, 2002. Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on June 27, 2002. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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.
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).