California state prisoner Falao Toalepai appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 motion as untimely. Toalepai seeks to challenge his jury trial conviction for one count of first degree murder with a deadly weapon in violation of Cal. Pen.Code §§ 187 and 12022(b). We do not reach the merits of Toalepai’s appeal because we hold that we lack appellate jurisdiction. A timely filed notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). Although ignored by the parties, we are “required to consider the timeliness of the appeal.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 457 (9th Cir.1983); see also Pettibone v. Cupp, 666 F.2d 333, 335 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). On February 16, 2000, the district court
holding that a district court may not construe an untimely notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time holding that the case must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal was untimely holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal holding that the plaintiffs motion for extension of time to file appeal qualified as a notice of appeal because it met the requirements of rule 4 of the federal rules of appellate procedure