                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 97-6957



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-93-262-A, CA-97-382-AM)


Submitted:   November 6, 1997          Decided:     November 25, 1997


Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lloyd George Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 have sixty 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 March 21, 1997; Appel-

lant's notice of appeal was filed on May 26, 1997, which is beyond

the sixty-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). Appellant's

failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the ap-

peal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the

merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argu-

ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-

sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.




                                                         DISMISSED



                                2
