Court Opinion

ID: 1009190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:52:05.017245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:22.322512
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 02-7324

PAUL GRAHAM,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WILLIAM O. FILBERT, Warden; WILLIAM H. HAYES,
Assistant Warden,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
02-1117-CCB)

Submitted:   November 21, 2002            Decided:   December 3, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Graham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Paul Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust state

remedies.   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 April

19, 2002.      The notice of appeal was filed on August 27, 2002.

Because Graham 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