Kimberly Renee Poole v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v. Robinson, 361…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6467
KIMBERLY RENEE POOLE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Warden; HENRY
MCMASTER, Attorney General for the State of
South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(0:03-cv-03499-RBH)
Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 31, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Isaac Diggs, Chief Attorney, DIGGS, DIGGS & AXELROD, Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Kimberly Renee Poole seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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
January 31, 2007. Poole’s counsel filed the notice of appeal on
March 27, 2007. Because Poole 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 --