UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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,

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

, 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