Case Name: Curtis J. BROWN, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-28
Citations: 147 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 05-6884
Parties: Curtis J. BROWN, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 147
Pages: 389–390

Head Matter:
Curtis J. BROWN, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6884.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 28, 2005.
Curtis J. Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Curtis J. Brown, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to appoint counsel. 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 cour 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 July 27, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on May 24, 2005. Because Brown 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
We have given Brown the benefit of the ruling in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), in determining the date on which he filed his materials with the district court.