Case Name: John S. PETTENGILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-16
Citations: 85 F. App'x 904
Docket Number: No. 03-7422
Parties: John S. PETTENGILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 904–904

Head Matter:
John S. PETTENGILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7422.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 18, 2003.
Decided Jan. 16, 2004.
John S. Pettengill, Appellant pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
John S. Pettengill seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) 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. Director, Dep't of Corrs., 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 4, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on September 5, 2003. Because Pettengill 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