                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 98-6491



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


FREDERICK GEORGE BROWN, a/k/a Toto-Roy, a/k/a
Fox,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-89-95-B, CA-97-4112-B)


Submitted:   September 10, 1998       Decided:   September 24, 1998


Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Frederick George Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Miriam Aroni Krinsky,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant 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 sixty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judg-

ments 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 Jan. 13, 1998; Appel-

lant’s notice of appeal was filed on Mar. 30, 1998, which is beyond

the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant’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 Appellant’s

appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dis-

miss 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




                                2
