Court Opinion

ID: 1006959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:18:46.037532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:52.829102
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 01-7911

JOSEPH VEREEN,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,
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.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-99-3984-2-23AJ)

Submitted:   March 14, 2002                 Decided:   March 22, 2002

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Vereen, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Joseph Vereen seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to the Appellees and denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

2001).    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

Vereen’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 March

29, 2001.     Vereen’s notice of appeal was signed on September 24,

2001.    Because Vereen 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

                                  2