Juma A. Whitfield v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v. Robinson,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6445
JUMA A. WHITFIELD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. GARMAN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-612-3)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juma A. Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* Because the appeal is late, we lack jurisdiction to
determine whether Whitfield has established grounds for a
certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).
2
PER CURIAM:
Juma A. Whitfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying 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. 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
February 3, 2003. Giving Whitfield the benefit of Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266 (1988), his notice of appeal was filed on March 12,
2003. Because Whitfield failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *
We deny Whitfield’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --