ORDER

Johnson appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus. He was convicted in the courts of California and was incarcerated when he filed his petition, but is now at liberty on parole. He was given notice of the hearing and requested that his appeal be submitted on the briefs. He argues that his sentence for bank robbery was enhanced improperly by the trial judge giving consideration to his use of a firearm in the commission of the offense, despite the provisions of California Penal Code § 1170(b). It is his argument that this enhancement amounted to a violation of his due process rights under the United States Constitution.

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed under the provisions of Rule 4(a)(1), F.R.A.P., and no motion for exten *328 sion of time was sought from the district court within the period provided by Rule 4(a)(5), F.R.A.P. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Pettibone v. Cupp, 666 F.2d 333 (9th Cir. 1981).