Chauncey E. Orr v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v.…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7703
CHAUNCEY E. ORR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-98-208-4-13BD)
Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 30, 2000
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chauncey E. Orr, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Chauncey E. Orr seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 1999). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because Orr’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(b)(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 March
10, 1999. Orr’s notice of appeal was filed on November 29, 1999.
Because Orr failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certif-
icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --