
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew John WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6207.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2001.
    Decided April 19, 2001.
    Andrew John Walker, pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Andrew Walker appeals four district court orders pertaining to the court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) motion as successive. 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 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)). As to the first two orders, entered August 23, 2000, and September 7, 2000, respectively, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Walker’s notice of appeal, filed December 9, 2000, was not timely filed.

Walker also challenges in his informal brief the court’s orders entered December 20, 2000, and January 26, 2001, respectively. Although an informal brief may be construed as a notice of appeal, see Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992), the brief was filed beyond the sixty-day appeal period as to the December 20, 2000, order and, therefore, is likewise untimely. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). Hence, as to the Walker’s appeal of the district court’s first three orders, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Walker, however, has noted a timely appeal of the court’s January 26, 2001, order denying his second motion for reconsideration. As to that order, we have reviewed the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Walker, No. CR-80-46; CA-00-2090-Y (D.Md. filed Jan. 26, 2001, entered Jan. 30, 2000). 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.  