Case Name: Darryl TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden; Douglas Gansler, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-20
Citations: 318 F. App'x 151
Docket Number: No. 08-7125
Parties: Darryl TAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden; Douglas Gan-sler, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Ap-pellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 318
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
Darryl TAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden; Douglas Gan-sler, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Ap-pellees.
No. 08-7125.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 13, 2008.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2008.
Michael Lawlor, Lawlor & Englert, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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. 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. Dir., 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 1, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed by Taylor's attorney on May 6, 2008. Because Taylor 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.