                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7540



LARRY NORMAN GAMBRELL,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden of Perry Correctional
Institution; 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 Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CA-00-593-23-9)


Submitted:   February 6, 2003          Decided:     February 12, 2003


Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Larry Norman Gambrell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:

     Larry Norman Gambrell 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).    This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, 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 March

29, 2001.      The notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2002.

Because Gambrell 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 are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.




                                                           DISMISSED


                                 2
