                               UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 02-7399



JAMES VINCENT BEASLEY, SR.,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; WARDEN, Coffeewood
Correctional Center,

                                               Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-99-312-3)


Submitted:    December 16, 2002              Decided:   February 3, 2003


Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Vincent Beasley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     James Vincent Beasley, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). 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 August

12, 2002.     The notice of appeal was filed on September 16, 2002.

Because Beasley 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 also deny

Beasley’s Motion for Limited Remand. 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
