Rodney Mollins v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 1988 . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Rodney Mollins seeks to appeal the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6789
RODNEY MOLLINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Perry Correctional Institution; HENRY
MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(3:06-cv-01037)
Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: September 12, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Mollins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Melody Jane
Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

*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. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Mollins seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed.
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. Dir., 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
March 27, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on May 7, 2007. *
Because Mollins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 --