Court Opinion

ID: 1001939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:03:07.634164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:40:48.227359
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-6639

CRAIG WILLIAMS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JOHN P. GALLEY, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
00-382-CCB)

Submitted:   June 15, 2000                 Decided:   June 26, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Craig Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dis-

missing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Williams’

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 Feb-

ruary 15, 2000.    Williams’ notice of appeal was filed on April 20,

2000.*   Because Williams 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

     *
       For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

                                  2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                3