                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 96-2502



DIAN HICKS,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

EMPLOYMENT    SECURITY   COMMISSION   OF   NORTH
CAROLINA,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     W. Earl Britt, District
Judge. (CA-96-510-5-BR)


Submitted:    December 12, 1996        Decided:     December 18, 1996


Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dian Hicks, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 thirty 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 August 15, 1996;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 22, 1996. Appel-

lant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain either an exten-

sion or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without

jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We

therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument be-

cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.




                                                         DISMISSED




                                2
