                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-1637



ERICA WILLIAMS,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INCORPORATED,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:05-cv-00969-WMN)


Submitted: March 22, 2007                   Decided: March 27, 2007


Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Erica Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Dore, Michael T.
Pate, Bruce Edward Covahey, COVAHEY, BOOZER, DEVAN & DORE, PA,
Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Erica Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing her complaint.      We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

          Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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

April 17, 2006.    The notice of appeal was filed on May 18, 2006.

Because Williams 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




                                - 2 -
