UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6576

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

ANTHONY ALEXANDER ROSE, a/k/a Michael Colfield, a/k/a Anthony Brown, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-73-BO, CA-97-151-4-BO)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Alexander Rose, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, As- sistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Anthony Alexander Rose filed an untimely notice 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 sixty 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 14, 1997; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed at the earliest on January 31, 1998, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(c), which is beyond the sixty 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 Appellant’s appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap- peal. 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