                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 97-6476



DONOVAN SMITH,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


EARL D. BESHEARS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
96-2517-CCB)


Submitted:   July 24, 1997                 Decided:   August 7, 1997


Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Donovan Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann
Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Balti-
more, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 January 22, 1997;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on March 20, 1997, which is

beyond the thirty-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 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
