Ross Berryman v. Superintendent Randy Lee

Filing 920080430

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6249

ROSS ALLEN BERRYMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT RANDY LEE, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:00-cv-00058-GCM)

Submitted:

April 24, 2008

Decided:

April 30, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ross Allen Berryman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ross Allen Berryman seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 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). and jurisdictional." This appeal period is "mandatory

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 October 30, 2000. 2008.* The notice of appeal was filed on January 8,

Because Berryman failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the

contentions

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 properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 -

*

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -