
    William Gaston GRIFFIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; North Carolina Parole Commission, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 03-7648.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 20, 2005.
    Decided Aug. 24, 2005.
    William Gaston Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

William Gaston Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. 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)). A prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed filed when submitted to prison officials for mailing in accordance with Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). However, the prisoner must comply with Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2000) to benefit from this mailbox rule.

The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on September 3, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2003. Because Griffin 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 
      
       Because Griffin’s notice of appeal did not comply with Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2000), we find he is not entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule.
     