
    Matthew J. BENNETT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 05-1710.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 22, 2005.
    Decided: Dec. 1, 2005.
    Matthew J. Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen M. Wolfinger, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    
      Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Matthew J. Bennett appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint in which he requested that the district court enjoin the withholding of federal income tax from his wages pursuant to instructions from the Internal Revenue Service to his employer, and denying his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

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. 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 (I960)).

The district court’s order dismissing the complaint was entered on the docket on March 29, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on June 21, 2005. Because Bennett failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the dismissal order or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal.

Bennett’s notice of appeal was timely, however, with respect to the district court’s June 9, 2005, order denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion denying the motion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this order for the reasons stated by the district court. Bennett v. United States, No. CA-04-705-7-GEC (W.D.Va. filed June 9, 2005; entered June 10, 2005). Additionally, we deny the United States’ motion for sanctions. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART  