
    Raymond Charles CREASON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; Joseph Pickelsimer, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 00-6930.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2000.
    Decided Jan. 5, 2001.
    
      Raymond Charles Creason, pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Raymond Charles Creason appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed .R.App.P. 4. These periods are “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)). Parties to civil actions are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal upon a motion made within thirty days of the appeal period, see Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period upon a motion filed within 180 days of the judgment, or within seven days of the receipt of notice, whichever is earlier, see Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on October 5, 1999. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on April 19, 2000, which is beyond both the thirty-day appeal period and the 180-day period within which to move the district court to reopen the appeal period. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability and 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.  