Case Name: Reginald Bernard WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-23
Citations: 54 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 02-7392
Parties: Reginald Bernard WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 54
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
Reginald Bernard WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7392.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
Decided Jan. 23, 2003.
Reginald Bernard Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Reginald Bernard Williams seeks to appeal' the district court's order denying 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 March 7, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on September 12, 2002. Because Williams 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 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).