Court Opinion

ID: 995732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:41:22.805885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:00.637799
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 98-6631

NEVELL ROGERS,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

MICHAEL W. MOORE; ATTORNEY     GENERAL    OF   THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                               Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.    Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-97-3736-2-10)

Submitted:   July 2, 1998                      Decided:   July 29, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nevell Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Nevell Rogers filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of

appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “manda-

tory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Correc-

tions, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,

361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty

days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal

from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only

exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends

the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

     The district court entered its order on February 19, 1998;

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on April 28, 1998, which is

beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appel-

lant’s appeal. We therefore 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 mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED

                                2