Rehearing granted by order filed 7/3/00; unpublished opinion issued 3/3/00 is vacated.

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6015

EDDIE JAMES HARVEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-910-3-22BC)

Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie James Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Caro- lina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Eddie James Harvey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999) peti- tion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Ap- pellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

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(b)(1), 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 Corrections, 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 No- vember 12, 1999. Harvey’s notice of appeal was dated December 20, 1999, and filed on December 22, 1999. Because Harvey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or re- opening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and 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