UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7074



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LAWRENCE S. SPIVEY,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-01-786; CA-04-1872)


Submitted: December 15, 2005              Decided:   December 21, 2005



Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lawrence Spivey, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Lawrence S. Spivey seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

denying   reconsideration.   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. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,

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

, 229 (1960)).

           The district court’s order denying relief on Spivey’s

§ 2255 motion was entered on the docket on March 30, 2005, and the

order denying Spivey’s motion for reconsideration was entered on

the docket on April 26, 2005.      The notice of appeal was filed on

June 28, 2005.*   Because Spivey failed to file a timely notice of

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

we deny Spivey’s motion for a certificate of appealability and



     *
      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 properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 

(1988).

                                  - 2 -
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




                                     - 3 -