
    William A. FISHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Page True, Warden Sussex I Prison, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 02-6210.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 30, 2002.
    Decided June 6, 2002.
    William A. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

William A. Fisher seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s 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, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(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, 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 December 6, 2001. Fisher’s notice of appeal was filed on January 9, 2002. Because Fisher failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Fisher’s motion requesting an evidentiary hearing, release from prison, a new bond hearing, a new trial and a dismissal of the charges. 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 Fisher's notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
     