UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-6325



TITUS MIL-QUIGLESS COTTEN,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


MARVIN POLK, Warden of Central Prison,

                  Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02119-H)


Submitted:     July 22, 2008                 Decided:   July 25, 2008


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Titus Mil-Quigless Cotten, Appellant Pro Se.          Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Titus Mil-Quigless Cotten seeks to appeal the district

court’s judgment 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. 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 23, 2007.        The notice of appeal was filed on February 25,

2008.*   Because Cotten 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

     *
      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 -