In these consolidated appeals, Thomas W. Hofler, Jr., and Lamont Knight appeal the June 12, 2003, district court order denying their motions to reconsider. Knight also appeals from the March 15, 2002, district court judgment. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

We have reviewed the record and the June 12, 2003, district court order and find the district court did not abuse its discretion denying the motions to reconsider. Accordingly, we affirm. We dismiss as untimely Knight’s appeal from the March 15, 2002, order.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t ofCorr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 15, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on July 10, 2003.

Accordingly, because Knight failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss his appeal from the March 15, 2002, order. As for Hofler’s and Knight’s appeals from the district court’s order denying the motion to reconsider, we affirm. We deny Hofler’s motion to clarify and the motions by Hofler and Knight for a copy of the transcript produced at government expense. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.