                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7162



GLEN WAYNE STAPLETON,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (CA-03-406-7-jpj)


Submitted:   August 26, 2004              Decided:   September 3, 2004


Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Glen Wayne Stapleton, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Glen Wayne Stapleton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his motion for relief from

judgment.    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. Dir., 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 entered on the docket on

February 3, 2004.   The notice of appeal was filed on July 6, 2004.*

Because Stapleton failed to file a timely notice of appeal, or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss

the appeal.    We further deny Stapleton’s motion for a certificate

of appealability. We dispense with oral argument because the facts




     *
      For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

                                - 2 -
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                         DISMISSED




                              - 3 -
