Case Name: Edward BRICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-11
Citations: 18 F. App'x 169
Docket Number: No. 01-6403
Parties: Edward BRICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 18
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
Edward BRICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-6403.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 17, 2001.
Decided Sept. 11, 2001.
Edward Brice, pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Edward Brice seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Brice'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 (I960)).
The district court's order from which Brice appeals was entered on the docket on December 8, 2000. Brice's notice of appeal is deemed to be filed no earlier than January 29, 2001. Because Brice 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 asstime that 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).