Case Name: Stefen Emira HARRIS, Ras, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-24
Citations: 55 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 02-7633
Parties: Stefen Emira HARRIS, Ras, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 161–161

Head Matter:
Stefen Emira HARRIS, Ras, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7633.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
Decided Jan. 24, 2003.
Stefen Emira Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stefen Emira Harris 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. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. RApp. 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 12, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on October 17, 2002. Because Harris 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.