Blankenship v. Mitchell , 196 F. App'x 225 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6433
    GAY EUGENE BLANKENSHIP,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DOUG    MITCHELL,     Superintendent,      Craggy
    Correctional,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
    District Judge. (1:05-cv-00083)
    Submitted: August 24, 2006                    Decided: August 30, 2006
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gay Eugene Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge
    III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Gay Eugene Blankenship, a state prisoner, 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. 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 judgment was entered on the docket
    on January 20, 2006.     The notice of appeal, which Blankenship
    himself dated February 26, 2006, was late. Because Blankenship has
    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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-4455

Citation Numbers: 196 F. App'x 225

Filed Date: 8/30/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023