
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles E. PRICE, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-6546.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 18, 2005.
    Decided: Oct. 20, 2005.
    Charles E. Price, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Charles E. Price seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice a miscellaneous post-judgment 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. 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 was entered on the docket on February 13, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on March 31, 2005. Because Price failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny Price’s motions for a speedy trial and a jury trial. 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  