Case Name: Freddy Alberto JUAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Daniel A. BRAXTON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-19
Citations: 241 F. App'x 988
Docket Number: No. 07-6735
Parties: Freddy Alberto JUAREZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Daniel A. BRAXTON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 241
Pages: 988–988

Head Matter:
Freddy Alberto JUAREZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Daniel A. BRAXTON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-6735.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 13, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 19, 2007.
Freddy Alberto Juarez, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Freddy Alberto Juarez seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice 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, 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 March 22, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on April 26, 2007. Because Juarez 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.
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, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).