Ronald Lee Sunkins v. Saunders, No. 98-6697, 1999 WL 134205 4th Cir. Feb. 17, 1999 unpublished . 2 PER…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7614
RONALD LEE SUNKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LONNIE SAUNDERS, Warden, Augusta Correctional
Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-300-AM)
Submitted: May 8, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Lee Sunkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* This is Sunkins’ second appeal in this matter. His first
appeal was dismissed by this court on February 17, 1999. See
Sunkins v. Saunders, No. 98-6697, 1999 WL 134205 (4th Cir. Feb. 17,
1999) (unpublished).
2
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Lee Sunkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) peti-
tion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Sunkins’ notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases in which the United States is not a party, par-
ties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s
final judgment or order to note an appeal, see 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 April
1, 1998. Sunkins’ notice of appeal was filed on October 18, 2000. *
Because Sunkins 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --