UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7767
RICHARD P. MICHAEL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD F. MOATS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.
(CA-96-737-HAR)
Submitted: March 11, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard P. Michael, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ellen Barbera, Assis-
tant Attorney General, Baltimore, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 September 12, 1996;
Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 24, 1996. Appel-
lant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of
the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consid-
er the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certifi-
cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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