Case Name: Steven D. ROLLINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-28
Citations: 96 F. App'x 124
Docket Number: No. 03-7688
Parties: Steven D. ROLLINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 124–124

Head Matter:
Steven D. ROLLINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7688.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 31, 2004.
Decided April 28, 2004.
Steven D. Rollins, Appellant pro se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Steven D. Rollins seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing 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 September 10, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on October 15, 2003. Because Rollins 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).