Case Name: Brian K. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-05
Citations: 197 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 06-6501
Parties: Brian K. JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 197
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Brian K. JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6501.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 5, 2006.
Brian K Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brian K. Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as an unauthorized successive 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 May 2, 2005. The notice of appeal was executed on February 15, 2006. The district court improperly authorized Jones' belated notice of appeal, as it was filed more than 180 days after the entry of the district court's order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6)(B). Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to seasonably obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Jones's motion for 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.