Glenn Wayne Spencer v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 1988 . 2 PER CURIAM: Glenn Wayne Spencer seeks to appeal the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6936
GLENN WAYNE SPENCER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID CHESTER, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-01-157)
Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glenn Wayne Spencer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Wayne Spencer seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motions for reconsideration. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because Spencer’s 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, see
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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
February 19, 2002. Spencer’s notice of appeal was filed on May 20,
2002. * Because Spencer 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 --