Larry Norman Gambrell v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v. Robinson,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7540
LARRY NORMAN GAMBRELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden of Perry Correctional
Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CA-00-593-23-9)
Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Norman Gambrell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Norman Gambrell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing 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. Director, 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 March
29, 2001. The notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2002.
Because Gambrell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a
certificate of appealability 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 of 2 --