UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-6433



GAY EUGENE BLANKENSHIP,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DOUG    MITCHELL,     Superintendent,      Craggy
Correctional,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00083)


Submitted: August 24, 2006                    Decided: August 30, 2006



Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gay Eugene Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Gay Eugene Blankenship, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order 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).    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 judgment was entered on the docket

on January 20, 2006.     The notice of appeal, which Blankenship

himself dated February 26, 2006, was late. Because Blankenship has

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




                               - 2 -