UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-6936



GLENN WAYNE SPENCER,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DAVID CHESTER, Superintendent,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-01-157)


Submitted:   October 10, 2002             Decided:   October 17, 2002


Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Glenn Wayne Spencer, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Glenn Wayne Spencer seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his motions for reconsideration.      We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because Spencer’s notice of appeal

was not timely filed.

     Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).        This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.”       Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corr., 

, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,

, 229 (1960)).

     The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

February 19, 2002.   Spencer’s notice of appeal was filed on May 20,

2002.*   Because Spencer failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are




     *
       For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 

 (1988).


                                  2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.




                                                         DISMISSED




                                3