Don Meredith Cottee v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 1988 . 2 PER CURIAM: Don Meredith Cottee seeks to appeal the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7742
DON MEREDITH COTTEE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-201-AM)
Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Don Meredith Cottee, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* Cottee’s notice of appeal purports to appeal an order of the
district court entered on October 29, 2002, the same day Cottee
mailed the notice of appeal. The district court did not enter any
order pertaining to Cottee’s case on October 29, 2002, therefore we
will assume Cottee was attempting to appeal either the August 2,
2002 order or the September 25, 2002 order. 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 properly delivered
to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
PER CURIAM:
Don Meredith Cottee seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000) and denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). 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 orders were entered on the docket on
August 2, 2002 (dismissal of § 2254 petition) and September 25,
2002 (denial of R. 59(e) motion). The notice of appeal was filed on
October 29, 2002. * Because Cottee failed to file a timely notice

-- 2 of 3 --

3
of appeal for either of these orders 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

-- 3 of 3 --