                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7006



RAYMOND DAVID ROBINSON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


PATRICK CONROY; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01-
2866-L)


Submitted:   September 19, 2002       Decided:   September 30, 2002


Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymond David Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. J. Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Raymond David Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.   We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s 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, 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 May

17, 2002.     Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on June 27,

2002.*   Because Appellant 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

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions




     *
      For the purpose of this appeal, we assume 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
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.




                                                     DISMISSED




                                3
