
    Sylvester Lee PANNELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-7229.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 25, 2008.
    Decided: March 27, 2008.
    Sylvester Lee Pannell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Sylvester Lee Pannell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In civil cases in which the United States is not a party, parties have thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). A district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves for an extension within thirty days after expiration of the original appeal period and the party has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Washington v. Bum-gamer, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989). Moreover, a district court may reopen the time to file an appeal if it finds: (i) the moving party did not receive notice of the entry of judgment within twenty-one days of entry; (ii) the motion to reopen is filed within 180 days after the judgment is entered or within seven days after the movant receives notice of entry, whichever is earlier; and (in) no party would be prejudiced. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). The time period within which to file a notice of appeal is “ ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Carr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).

The district court’s order dismissing Pannell’s § 2254 petition was entered on April 3, 2007. Pannell therefore had until May 3, 2007 to file his notice of appeal. Pannell’s notice of appeal was not filed until August 16, 2007. Although Pannell’s notice of appeal asks for another opportunity to appeal his case, Pannell did not timely move for an extension of time or for a reopening of the time to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a). Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 decision process.

DISMISSED.  