Warner Hill v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 1988 . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Warner Hill appeals the district…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7331
WARNER HILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PATRICK CONROY; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-2001-WMN)
Submitted: January 23, 2004 Decided: March 25, 2004
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warner Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*Because Hill is a pro se inmate, his petition is deemed filed
on July 24, 2003, the day he signed it. See Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Warner Hill appeals the district court’s order denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and dismissing his case with
prejudice. 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, see
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 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
June 18, 2003. Hill’s notice of appeal was filed on July 24,
2003, * nearly a week after the expiration of the appeal period.
Hill failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period. We accordingly
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --