Case Name: Samson M. PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-18
Citations: 356 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 09-7272
Parties: Samson M. PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
Samson M. PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7272.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2009.
Samson M. Parker, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samson M. Parker seeks to appeal the district court's order denying Parker's motion to reopen the time to file a notice of appeal. 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 August 6, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on July 6, 2009. Because Parker 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 ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.