Case Name: James Vincent BEASLEY, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Warden, Coffeewood Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-03
Citations: 55 F. App'x 194
Docket Number: No. 02-7399
Parties: James Vincent BEASLEY, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Warden, Coffeewood Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
James Vincent BEASLEY, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Warden, Coffeewood Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7399.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 16, 2002.
Decided Feb. 3, 2003.
James Vincent Beasley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Vincent Beasley, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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. 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 August 12, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on September 16, 2002. Because Beasley 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 also deny Beasley's Motion for Limited Remand. 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.