The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6193
JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MARYLAND; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 96-6194
JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THERESA A. NOLAN, Judge; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 96-6195
JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOHN W. HARDWICKE, Chief Administrative Law
Judge,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 96-6196
JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION,
Defendant - Appellee.
2
No. 96-6197
JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOHN W. HARDWICKE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95-
2459-L, CA-95-2407-L, CA-95-2408-L, CA-95-3348-L, CA-93-3649-L, CA-
95-1844-L)
Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
Jr., Attorney General, Maureen Mullen Dove, Assistant Attorney
General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
3
PER CURIAM:
Appellant noted these appeals outside the thirty-day appeal
period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain
extensions of the appeal periods within the additional thirty-day
period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to
relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established
by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.
Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting
United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district
court entered its orders on November 19, 1993, January 25, 1995,
July 28, 1995, September 5, 1995, and September 6, 1995; Appel-
lant's notices of appeal were filed on January 19, 1996. Appel-
lant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of
the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider
this case. We therefore deny certificates of appealability in Nos.
96-6193, 96-6194, 96-6195, and 96-6197, and dismiss all five
appeals. 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
4