UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

HENRY T. SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 97-1996

STATE OF MARYLAND,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CA-97-1654-PJM)

Submitted: January 15, 1998

Decided: July 24, 1998

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

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Henry T. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Witherup Tindall,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Balti-
more, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are gov-
erned by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and juris-
dictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257,
264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229
(1960)). A defendant in a criminal action has ten days within which
to file in the district court a notice of appeal from a judgment or final
order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The only exception to the appeal period
is when the district court extends the time to appeal upon showing of
excusable neglect. Id.

The district court entered its order on June 13, 1997, and denied
Appellant's motion for reconsideration on July 2, 1997; Appellant's
notice of appeal was filed on July 16, 1997, which is beyond the ten-
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 Appellant's appeal. We therefore
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We
also deny all of Appellant's outstanding motions including his
motions for a stay, a preliminary injunction, an interim stay, a vaca-
tion, expedited treatment, a conference, summary reversal, sanctions,
attorney's fees, remand, "alternatives," "modifications," default, and
an evidentiary hearing. 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
