                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 00-6815



JESUS ANTONIO GRACIA,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. William T. Prince, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-99-2138-2)


Submitted:   November 9, 2001          Decided:     December 18, 2001


Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William P. Robinson, Jr., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Jesus Antonio Gracia seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2001).*     We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because Gracia’s notice of appeal was not timely

filed.

     In civil cases in which the United States is not a party,

parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see 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 May 1,

2000.    Gracia’s notice of appeal was filed by his counsel on June

6, 2000.    Because Gracia 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




     *
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). (R. 4, 6).


                                  2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.




                                                     DISMISSED




                                3
