Case Name: Benjamin BANNISTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina; Charles Condon, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-10
Citations: 18 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 01-6533
Parties: Benjamin BANNISTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina; Charles Condon, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 18
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
Benjamin BANNISTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina; Charles Condon, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 01-6533.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 17, 2001.
Decided Sept. 10, 2001.
Benjamin Bannister, pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Benjamin Bannister seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Bannister's notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after 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 jur isdictional." 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 (1960)).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on September 29, 2000. According Bannister the benefit of Fed. R.App. P. 4(c), his notice of appeal was filed on March 28, 2001. Although Bannister claimed he did not receive the district court's order until March 9, 2001, he did not move for an extension of time to appeal within seven days of his receipt of the district court's order. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6)(A). Because Bannister 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.