PER CURIAM.
Ronald Lee Sunkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Sunkins’ notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases in which the United States is not a party, parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see 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 April 1, 1998. Sunkins’ notice of appeal was filed on October 18, 2000. Because Sunkins 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.
This is Sunkins’ second appeal in this matter. His first appeal was dismissed by this court on Februaty 17, 1999. See Sunkins v. Saunders, No. 98-6697, 1999 WL 134205 (4th Cir. Feb. 17, 1999) (unpublished).