                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-6688



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ISAAC PERRY, a/k/a Ike,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:93-cr-00042-F)


Submitted:   July 24, 2007                 Decided:   August 1, 2007


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Isaac Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., John Eric
Evenson, II, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Isaac Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion seeking immediate release from prison.                    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 28, 2006.        The notice of appeal was filed on March 20,

2007.*   Because Perry 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




     *
      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. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988).

                                      - 2 -
materials   before   the   court   and     argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                   - 3 -
