UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-7195



JERRY RESTO-DIAZ,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CA-05-5-7-SGW)


Submitted:   April 26, 2006                  Decided:   May 11, 2006


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jerry Resto-Diaz, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Jerry Resto-Diaz seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition.   We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal

was not timely filed.

          When the United States or its officer or agency is a

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 dismissing Resto-Diaz’s motion

was entered on the docket on January 10, 2005.      The notice of

appeal can be deemed filed, at the earliest, on July 27, 2005.

Because Resto-Diaz failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 -