UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2237

PRISCILLA HINES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

US GOVERNMENT; SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION; SANDY CRANKS; TIMOTHY ROBERTSON; WILLIAM WAX- MAN, Director; OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS; CAROLYN W. NEYMAN, Assistant Commissioner; GORDON SHERMAN; KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-561-5-BO)

Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Priscilla Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson Kocher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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)). In civil actions in which the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, parties 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 December 22, 1997; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on July 7, 1998, 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 Appel- lant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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