UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6916

KELVIN J. MILES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-95- 1334-CCB)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 3, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attor- ney General, Tarra R. Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing no-

tices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections,

(1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,

(1960)). Parties to civil actions have

thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of

appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The

only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on November 16, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on June 3, 1996. Appellant's

failure to file a timely notice of appeal* or to obtain either an

extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court

without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack,

(1988).

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. We deny

the motions for appointment of counsel and for bail pending appeal.

DISMISSED

3