                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-1770



CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
04-4000-JFM)


Submitted:   September 29, 2005           Decided:   October 5, 2005


Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Chukwuma E. Azubuko, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Chukwuma E. Azubuko seeks to appeal the district court’s

order summarily dismissing his action against the United States.

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 of dismissal was entered on

the docket on January 5, 2005.    Orders were entered denying post-

judgment motions on January 24, 2005, February 8, 2005, March 2,

2005, and March 23, 2005.     The notice of appeal was filed on

June 30, 2005, ninety-nine days after the last order.       Because

Azubuko failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.




                                 - 2 -
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




                                  - 3 -
