UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SLADE MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 97-7073

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-89-196-A, CA-97-676-AM)

Submitted: July 31, 1998

Decided: August 28, 1998

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Slade Miller, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion and denying his

motion for reconsideration. To the extent that Appellant seeks to

appeal the denial of his § 2255 motion, his notice of appeal is

untimely, and 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, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (citing United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions, when

the United States is a party, have sixty days within which to file in

the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. See

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 denying Appellant's motion

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 on May 12, 1997; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on July 14, 1997,* 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 Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Regarding Appellant's appeal of the district court's order denying

his motion to reconsider, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), we do not find

the district court abused its discretion. See CNF Constructors, Inc. v.

Donohoe Constr. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 1995); United States

v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312-13 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal of the district court's order denying Appellant's

motion to reconsider under Rule 60(b). We deny Appellant's motion

for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-

_________________________________________________________________

*The notice was actually filed on July 18 but we have given Appellant

the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.

266 (1988).

 2
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 3