Griffin v. North Carolina , 141 F. App'x 206 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7648
WILLIAM GASTON GRIFFIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE
COMMISSION,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-02-582-5-HO)
Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Gaston Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Gaston Griffin seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as
untimely. 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)). A prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed filed when
submitted to prison officials for mailing in accordance with
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). However, the prisoner must
comply with Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2000) to
benefit from this mailbox rule.
The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket
on September 3, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on October 7,
2003.* Because Griffin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
*
Because Griffin’s notice of appeal did not comply with Fed.
R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2000), we find he is not
entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule.
- 2 -
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
- 3 -