UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7526
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOWARD EUGENE SHERRILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,
District Judge. (CR-93-8-MU, CA-96-31-5-MU)
Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard Eugene Sherrill, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing no-
tices 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 judgments 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 11, 1997; Ap-
pellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 17, 1997. Appel-
lant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal* or to obtain
either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this
court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's
appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dis-
miss 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
*
For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Ap-
pellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would
have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266 (1988).
2