                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6516



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


FOREST GIBBS, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-02-1158; CA-04-1246-2)


Submitted:   June 9, 2005                  Decided:   June 17, 2005


Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Forest Gibbs, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lee Ellis Berlinsky, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Forest Gibbs, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 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. 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

July 9, 2004.   The notice of appeal was filed on April 1, 2005.*

Because Gibbs failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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


     *
      The envelope containing Gibbs’ notice of appeal indicates
that he delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing on
April 1, 2005. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
