Court Opinion

ID: 1012249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:42:05.245093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:04.169731
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7422

JOHN S. PETTENGILL,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-128-7)

Submitted:   December 18, 2003            Decided:   January 16, 2004

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John S. Pettengill, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              John S. Pettengill seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing 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 order was entered on the docket on

August 4, 2003.        The notice of appeal was filed on September 5,

2003.   Because Pettengill 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 -