NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey, II, Chief District Judge. (CA-90-1631-H; CA-90-1753-H; CA-90-2528-H)
Melvin Hill, appellant pro se.
D.Md.
DISMISSED.
Before DONALD RUSSELL, WIDENER and K.K. HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Hill seeks to appeal, in No. 90-7171, the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hill v. Zaccagnini, CA-90-2528-H (D.Md. Oct. 26, 1990).
Hill noted appeals No. 90-6193 and No. 90-6694 outside the 30-day appeal period established by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). Although he moved for an extension of the appeal period within the additional 30-day period provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5), the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the extension.* 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)). Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider these cases. We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss these 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.
The claims presented in No. 90-6193 and No. 90-6694 are identical to the claims presented in No. 90-7171. Even if the district court had granted an extension of the appeal period, his appeals are without merit, as noted by the district court. Hill's suits are successive, in violation of Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus