UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARY JANE GROVE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 98-1907
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
ILLINOIS,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.
(CA-97-515-R)

Submitted: December 17, 1998

Decided: January 4, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Charles R. Stack, Michael B. Feiler, HIGH, STACK, LAZENBY,
PALAHACH, MAXWELL, & PLATT, Coral Gables, Florida, for
Appellant. Edward H. Starr, Jr., MAYS & VALENTINE, L.L.P.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Mary Jane Grove appeals from the district court's order denying
her motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in this
civil action. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), the district court may
extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if the appellant files a
motion for such an extension no later than thirty days after the appeal
period has expired. A decision whether to extend the appeal period
lies within the discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed
absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. See Thompson v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 

, 534 (4th Cir. 1996). In the
district court, Grove's only attempt at showing the"excusable neglect
or good cause" required by Rule 4(a)(5) was counsel's contention that
the United States Postal Service did not deliver the notice of appeal
as he had assumed it would. As we have previously stated, "a non-
prisoner litigant who entrusts his filing with the postal processes,
without taking further steps to ensure that the notice of appeal is
timely `filed' with the district court, cannot establish excusable
neglect." Id.

Grove has not shown how the district court's adherence to this
holding was an abuse of discretion. See James v. Jacobson, 

, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). While the circumstances surrounding the
failure of the notice to arrive in the district court might support a
court's decision to extend the appeal period, there was no abuse of
discretion in reaching the opposite conclusion. In exercising its dis-
cretion to reach its decision, the district court did not ignore judicially
recognized factors or rely on an erroneous factual findings or legal
conclusions. See id. Because the district court did not exceed its dis-
cretion in denying Appellant's motion for an extension of time to file
a notice of appeal, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2