                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7792



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DANIEL LUTZ,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
95-293-PJM, CA-99-3663-HMH)


Submitted:   January 16, 2003             Decided:   January 29, 2003


Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daniel Lutz, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, Lynne Ann
Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Daniel Lutz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.     We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

     When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,

the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after

the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

     The district court’s order was dated June 25, 2002, and

entered on the docket on June 28, 2002.    The notice of appeal was

filed on October 15, 2002. Because Lutz failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.    We deny Lutz’s motion to compel and motion to expand

the record.    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
