Paul Adkins, Jr v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 1988 . 2 PER CURIAM: Paul Adkins, Jr. seeks to appeal the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6227
PAUL ADKINS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; MICHAEL F.
EASLEY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-98-00681-1)
Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 22, 2000
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Adkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* 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 given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
PER CURIAM:
Paul Adkins, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition
as untimely and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for recon-
sideration. We dismiss the appeal of the denial of the § 2254 pe-
tition for lack of jurisdiction, because Adkins’ notice of appeal
was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the dis-
trict 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 August
4, 1999. Adkins’ notice of appeal was filed on October 2, 1999. *
Because Adkins 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.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Adkins also appeals the denial of his motion for reconsid-
eration. However, a Rule 60(b) motion is not a substitute for
appeal. Because the motion merely requested the district court to
reconsider a legal issue, relief was not authorized. See United
States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). According-
ly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal
of this order as well. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --