Rochester v. McMaster , 332 F. App'x 840 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-6260
    DARRELL SILVERN ROCHESTER, a/k/a Darrell S. Rochester,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HENRY   MCMASTER;    CECILIA     REYNOLDS,   Warden,    Kershaw
    Correctional Institution,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (8:08-cv-01677-PMD)
    Submitted:    May 28, 2009                   Decided:   June 8, 2009
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Darrell Silvern Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Darrell Silvern Rochester seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006)
    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)).            Accord Bowles v. Russell,
    
    551 U.S. 205
     (2007).
    The district court’s order was entered on December 23,
    2008.     The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on
    February 4, 2009. ∗      Because Rochester 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
    ∗
    See Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
    , 276 (1988).
    2
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-6260

Citation Numbers: 332 F. App'x 840

Judges: Gregory, King, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 6/8/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023