Gary D. Gillespie v. McGraw, Jr., Leah Perry Macia, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6358
GARY D. GILLESPIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
HOWARD PAINTER, acting warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District
Judge. (CA-98-104-1)
Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary D. Gillespie, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Leah
Perry Macia, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* We have given Gillespie the benefit of the filing provisions
enunciated in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
PER CURIAM:
Gary D. Gillespie seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West Supp. 1999) petition. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Gillespie’s
notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties 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), 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 Corrections, 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
December 22, 1999. Gillespie’s notice of appeal was filed on March
3, 2000.* Because Gillespie failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
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

-- 2 of 2 --