                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-7939



ROBERT C. SHROUT,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden; NORTHERN REGIONAL JAIL
AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CA-03-239)


Submitted: August 31, 2006                 Decided: September 5, 2006


Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert C. Shrout, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Robert C. Shrout seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the report of the magistrate judge and dismissing

Shrout’s 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition as successive.   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

October 13, 2005.   The notice of appeal was filed on November 25,

2005, forty-three days later.*   Because Shrout failed to file a

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of

the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.   We deny Shrout’s motion

for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because


     *
      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 -
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials   before   the   court   and     argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                   - 3 -
