UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7688



STEVEN D. ROLLINS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-498-7)


Submitted:   March 31, 2004                 Decided:   April 28, 2004


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Steven D. Rollins, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Steven D. Rollins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

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., 

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

,

229 (1960)).

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

September 10, 2003.   The notice of appeal was filed on October 15,

2003.*   Because Rollins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal.




     *
      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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 

(1988).

                                - 2 -
          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




                              - 3 -