                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                              No. 96-7338



LUTHER BREWER HEATH,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

TOM C. MARTIN,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-95-736-5-H)


Submitted:   April 17, 1997                 Decided:   April 29, 1997


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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Luther Brewer Heath, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Kendrick Cleveland,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judg-

ments 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 July 16, 1996; Appel-

lant's notice of appeal was filed on August 23, 1996. 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 appeal. 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




                                2
