Case Name: Mark Anthony GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-28
Citations: 74 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 02-7850
Parties: Mark Anthony GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 74
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
Mark Anthony GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7850.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 7, 2003.
Decided Aug. 28, 2003.
Mark Anthony Graham, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mark Anthony Graham seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his habeas 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. 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 30, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on November 25, 2002. Because Graham 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.
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume 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).