
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Millard James THOMAS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-6424.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 4, 2006.
    Decided: Aug. 16, 2006.
    Millard James Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, 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    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this Circuit.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:

Millard James Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., 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 December 13, 2005. We deem Thomas’ notice of appeal to have been filed no earlier than February 21, 2006, the date it was apparently given to prison officials for mailing. Because Thomas 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.  