Bekru Ketema Wendemteke v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 4th Cir. 1986 . 2 PER CURIAM: Bekru Ketema Wendemteke…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6750
BEKRU KETEMA WENDEMTEKE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-634-2)
Submitted: July 31, 2000 Decided: September 20, 2000
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bekru Ketema Wendemteke, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* Although this second order was filed on November 8, 1999, it
was entered on the district court’s docket sheet on November 11,
1999. November 11, 1999, is therefore the effective date of the
district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); see
also Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2
PER CURIAM:
Bekru Ketema Wendemteke seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Wendemteke’s notice of
appeal was not timely filed.
Wendemteke was specifically advised that he had sixty days
after entry of the district court’s final order to note an appeal.
Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), this appeal period is “mandatory and
jurisdictional,” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434
U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.
220, 229 (1960)), and exists 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).
The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on May
24, 1999, and November 11, 1999. * Wendemteke’s notice of appeal
was filed on March 1, 2000. Because Wendemteke failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

-- 2 of 3 --

3
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --