UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7651
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY LEE SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-2, CA-98-132-3-P)
Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999
Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Lee Scott, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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 12, 1998;
Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on October 30, 1998, which
is beyond the sixty-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