UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 07-7597



CHARLES WOODROW TAGGART,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.


MARK R. WARNER,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:06-cv-0695-MHL)


Submitted:    March 27, 2008                 Decided:   April 2, 2008


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles Woodrow Taggart, Appellant Pro Se.       Mark Ralph Davis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Charles Woodrow Taggart seeks to appeal the order of the

district court1 denying 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. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 

, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 

,

229 (1960)).

               The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

August 28, 2007.        The notice of appeal was filed on October 10,

2007.2   Because Taggart 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




     1
      This case was decided by magistrate judge upon consent of the
parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
     2
      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, 

 (1988).

                                      - 2 -
materials   before   the   court   and     argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.
                                                                    DISMISSED




                                   - 3 -