Case Name: Darrell Silvern ROCHESTER, a/k/a Darrell S. Rochester, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry MCMASTER; Cecilia Reynolds, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-08
Citations: 332 F. App'x 840
Docket Number: No. 09-6260
Parties: Darrell Silvern ROCHESTER, a/k/a Darrell S. Rochester, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry MCMASTER; Cecilia Reynolds, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 840–840

Head Matter:
Darrell Silvern ROCHESTER, a/k/a Darrell S. Rochester, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry MCMASTER; Cecilia Reynolds, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-6260.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2009.
Decided: June 8, 2009.
Darrell Silvern Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Silvern Rochester seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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. RApp. 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)). Accord Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on December 23, 2008, 2008 WL 5378249. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on February 4, 2009. Because Rochester 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.
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).