                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 98-7594



FRANKLIN E. DENNISON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


ROBERT E. WARD, Warden; MICHAEL MOORE, Com-
missioner; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-96-3365-10BD)


Submitted:   March 25, 1999                 Decided:   March 30, 1999


Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Franklin E. Dennison, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Franklin E. Dennison 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 judgments 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 February 21, 1997;

Dennison’s notice of appeal was filed on October 26, 1998, which is

beyond the thirty-day appeal period.   Dennison’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 Den-

nison’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 mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                           DISMISSED




                                 2
