                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7482



ROLAND FENNELL,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-163-3)


Submitted: January 29, 2004                 Decided:   February 6, 2004


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roland Fennell, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Roland Fennell 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

July 30, 2002.      Giving Fennell the benefit of Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(6), the notice of appeal was filed on September 3, 2003.

Because Fennell 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 -
