
    Alan C. DEBNAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 04-6536.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2004.
    Decided June 21, 2004.
    
      Alan C. Debnam, Appellant pro se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, and Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Alan C. Debnam seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. 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 November 25, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on January 2, 2004. Because Debnam failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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).
     