Rose v. Johnson , 202 F. App'x 596 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6313

Citation Numbers: 202 F. App'x 596

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 10/5/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023