
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Melvin Antonio BURL, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-6322.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 9, 2005.
    Decided: June 16, 2005.
    Melvin Antonio Burl, Appellant pro se.
    James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). -
   PER CURIAM:

Melvin Antonio Burl seeks to appeal the district court’s order finding that he failed to timely file his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 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). If the district court’s final judgment or order is not set forth on a separate document, the notice of appeal must be filed within 150 days of the judgment or order under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii). These appeal periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 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 January 27, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on February 28, 2005. Because Burl failed to file 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 
      
       The envelope containing Burl’s notice of appeal indicates that he delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing on February 29, 2005, which we have interpreted as February 28, 2005. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
     