Joseph Kevin Zorumski, Jr 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UNPUBLISHED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. 04-7226
JOSEPH KEVIN ZORUMSKI, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DANIEL A. BRAXTON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-02-83-2)
Submitted: November 5, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Kevin Zorumski, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Kevin Zorumski, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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
May 7, 2004. The notice of appeal was, at the earliest, filed on
July 15, 2004. Because Zorumski failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
we deny Zorumski’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
deny his motion for transcripts at government expense, 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 --