Court Opinion

ID: 1017973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:12:54.218803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:54.287955
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-6982

SHAWN HOLLIMAN,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THEODIS   BECK,  Secretary,      North   Carolina
Department of Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District        Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.         James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-03-1236-1-JAB)

Submitted:   November 30, 2005           Decided:   December 12, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn Holliman, Appellant Pro Se.     Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Shawn Holliman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying 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. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

           The district court’s judgment was entered on its docket

on January 6, 2005.    According Holliman the benefit of Fed. R. App.

P. 4(c), his notice of appeal was filed on June 20, 2005.          Because

Holliman 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

                                  - 2 -