Gambrell v. Johnson ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7540
    LARRY NORMAN GAMBRELL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden of Perry Correctional
    Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney
    General of the State of South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
    (CA-00-593-23-9)
    Submitted:   February 6, 2003          Decided:     February 12, 2003
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry Norman Gambrell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
    Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Norman Gambrell 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 March
    29, 2001.      The notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2002.
    Because Gambrell 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7540

Filed Date: 2/12/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014