Court Opinion

ID: 1020591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:53:42.1418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:37.131456
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6313

JEVON ROSE,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director     of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:03-cv-00161-RAJ)

Submitted: September 28, 2006                 Decided: October 5, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jevon Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Jevon Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on 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. Dir., 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

September 22, 2003.    The notice of appeal was filed on February 21,

2006.   Because Rose failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny

Rose’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 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 -