
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David ZEBROWSKI, a/k/a Dog, a/k/a Mad Dog, a/k/a Lewis Brady, a/k/a David Stewart, a/k/a Eric Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6874.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 9, 2001.
    Decided Aug. 17, 2001.
    David Zebrowski, pro se. Mary Hannah Lauck, David John Novak, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

David Zebrowski seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) motion, entered on July 2, 1999, and denying the motion to amend, entered on March 14, 2001. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

The appeal irom the July 2,1999, order was not timely filed. Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), 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. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 2, 1999. Zebrowski’s notice of appeal was filed on May 16, 2001. Because Zebrowski failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Insofar as ZebrowsH appeals the district court order denying his motion for leave to amend the § 2255 motion, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Zebrowski Nos. CR-96-41; CA-98-350-3 (E.D.Va. Mar. 14, 2001).

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.  