
    Charles R. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINE; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 04-6984.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 12, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 20, 2004.
    Charles R. Smith, Appellant pro se.
    Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
   PER CURIAM:

Charles R. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, awarding summary judgment to Defendants, and dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 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., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 23, 2004. The notice of appeal was executed on June 2, 2004. Because Smith 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. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
     