UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6743

DARRAEL HOLLAND, a/k/a Robert Michael Long, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

TOM C. MARTIN, Warden, Great Plains Correc- tional Facility, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-96-306-3-MU)

Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrael Holland, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 10, 1997,* appeal- ing from an order dated April 24, 1997. There is no such order in the record. To the extent that Appellant is appealing from the district court's judgment entered on October 28, 1996, Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods 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)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judg- ments 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 October 28, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on May 10, 1997. 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, deny Appellant's motions to appoint counsel and for an evidentiary hearing, and dis- miss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

* See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED