                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 98-6846



WILLIAM RADIO BRIDGEMAN,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. CA-97-3348-2-13AJ)


Submitted:   October 8, 1998              Decided:   November 16, 1998


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Radio Bridgeman, Appellant Pro Se.      Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia,        South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William Radio Bridgeman 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

thirty 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, 1998;

Bridgeman’s notice of appeal was filed on June 4, 1998, which is

beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Bridgeman’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 Bridge-

man’s appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED




                                2
