UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 98-2761



GENE SMELCER,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


MOTEL 6, Operating LP,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-97-2345-2-23)


Submitted:   May 13, 1999                   Decided:   May 18, 1999


Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gene Smelcer, Appellant Pro Se. C. Mitchell Brown, NELSON, MUL-
LINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Columbia, South Carolina; Cherie W.
Blackburn, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Gene Smelcer 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 "man-

datory and jurisdictional."    Browder v. Director, Dep't of Correc-

tions, 

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

, 229 (1960)).     Parties to civil actions have thirty

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 October 27, 1998;

Smelcer's notice of appeal was filed on November 30, 1998, which is

beyond the thirty-day appeal period.     Smelcer'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 his

appeal.   We therefore 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