UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2448

GIL W. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 97-2449

GIL W. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

RITCHIE AUTOMOTIVE, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 97-2450

GIL W. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-2876-WMN, CA-97-2877-WMN, CA-97-2878-WMN)

Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gil W. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant filed untimely notices of appeal. We dismiss 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 orders on August 29, 1997; Appellant's notices of appeal were filed on October 10, 1997, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appel- lant's appeals. We therefore dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED