                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6187



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TIMOTHY BROOKS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:03-cr-00510-WDQ; 1:05-cv-01193-WDQ)


Submitted: June 22, 2006                       Decided: June 29, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Timothy Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.   John Francis Purcell, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Timothy Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.    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

August 24, 2005.   The notice of appeal was filed on January 27,

2006.   Because Brooks failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal.   Brooks’ motion for appointment of counsel is

denied. 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 -
