                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 97-7554



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TIMOTHY LEE FEWELL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
District Judge. (CR-92-284, CA-96-444-3-P)


Submitted:   February 26, 1998            Decided:   March 19, 1998


Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Timothy Lee Fewell, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 where the United States

is a party have sixty 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 April 30, 1997; Appel-

lant's notice of appeal was filed on September 29, 1997, 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 Appel-

lant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability,

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 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
