Case Name: Paul GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William O. FILBERT, Warden; William H. Hayes, Assistant Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-03
Citations: 51 F. App'x 464
Docket Number: No. 02-7324
Parties: Paul GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William O. FILBERT, Warden; William H. Hayes, Assistant Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 464–465

Head Matter:
Paul GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William O. FILBERT, Warden; William H. Hayes, Assistant Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7324.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2002.
Decided Dec. 3, 2002.
Paul Graham, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Paul Graham seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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 April 19, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on August 27, 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.