UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7516

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE DARRYL NESBITT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-80, CA-99-2328-7-20)

Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 20, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Darryl Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Willie Darryl Nesbitt 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,

(1978) (quoting United

States v. Robinson,

(1960)). Parties to civil

actions in which the United States is a party 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 August 16, 1999;

Nesbitt’s notice of appeal was filed on October 28, 1999.

Nesbitt’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 his appeal.

We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack,

(1988).

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3