Court Opinion

ID: 1003107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:21:12.141215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:45.228885
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-6136

LYNARD E. BARRON,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-99-542-AM)

Submitted:   November 30, 2000             Decided:   December 6, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lynard E. Barron, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Lynard E. Barron seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).   We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because Barron’s notice of appeal was not timely

filed.

     Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1), 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 Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)).

     The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June

3, 1999.      Barron’s notice of appeal was dated July 10, 1999,

thirty-seven days later.*   Because Barron 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

     *
       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 given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

                                   2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED

                                3