UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7435

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO HOLGUIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-221-B, CA-97-1296-B)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fernando Holguin, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; John Vincent Geise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Fernando Holguin filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dis-

miss 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,

(1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson,

(1960)). Parties to civil actions have

sixty days, if the United States is a party, within which to file

in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final

orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the ap-

peal 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’s order denying Holguin’s motion filed

under

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998) was filed on July

16, 1998, and entered on the docket the next day. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 58, 79(a); Wilson v. Murray,

(4th Cir.

1986). Holguin’s notice of appeal was filed on September 19, 1998,*

which is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App.

* Following Houston v. Lack,

(1988), Holguin gave his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on September 19, 1998. Even construing Houston liberally, however, documents filed with Holguin’s notice of appeal make it clear that he could not have submitted his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing before September 17, 1998, still beyond the sixty-day appeal period.

2 4(a)(1). Holguin’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an

extension of the appeal period leaves this court without juris-

diction to consider the merits of his appeal. We therefore deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-

quately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3