UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 09-7289


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

WILLIE LAWSON, a/k/a Uncle Willie,

                  Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:02-cr-00302-GBL-1; 1:08-cv-00408-GBL)


Submitted:    November 17, 2009            Decided:   November 23, 2009


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Willie Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Willie    Lawson   seeks   to   appeal   the   district   court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2009) motion.      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 was entered on the docket

on November 21, 2008.    The notice of appeal may be deemed filed,

at the earliest, on June 9, 2009. *       Because Lawson failed to file



     *
       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
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




                                       3