Parker v. Burtt , 261 F. App'x 450 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7721
    MARCUS JERRELL PARKER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STAN BURTT, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney
    General,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.   Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (6:05-cv-00359-JFA)
    Submitted: November 15, 2006              Decided: November 27, 2006
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Marcus Jerrell Parker, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald John Zelenka,
    Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
    CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Marcus   Jerrell   Parker    seeks   to   appeal   the   district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 1, 2006.     The notice of appeal was filed on October 3,
    2006.*   Because Parker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
    dismiss the appeal.      We further dismiss Parker’s motion for a
    certificate of appealability as moot.             We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    *
    For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
    appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
    have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
    court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
     (1988).
    - 2 -
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7721

Citation Numbers: 261 F. App'x 450

Judges: Motz, Per Curiam, Widener, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 11/27/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023