                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 -
