                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-6726


HENRY L. ROBINSON,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

ROBERT    H.      MAUNCY,    Warden,   Northside       Correctional
Institution,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.       Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:07-cv-00061-SB)


Submitted:    October 21, 2008              Decided:   October 27, 2008


Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Henry L.      Robinson,   Appellant Pro Se.       Melody Jane Brown,
Assistant     Attorney    General, Columbia,    South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Henry L. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on 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).          See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2107     (2000).     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)).    Accord Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007).

            The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on March 24, 2008.     The notice of appeal was filed on April 30,

2008. *   Because Robinson 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

      *
      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
facts   and   legal    contentions   are   adequately   presented     in   the

materials     before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                      3
