
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Eugene SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-7174, 04-7364.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 4, 2004.
    Decided: Nov. 10, 2004.
    Rodney Eugene Smith, Appellant pro se.
    Karen B. George, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before: WILKINSON, MOTZ, 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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

In No. 04-7174, Rodney Eugene Smith appeals his criminal judgment entered on December 13, 2001. Because Smith has filed an untimely notice of appeal, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R.App. P. 4. These periods are “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)). A defendant in a criminal action has ten days within which to file in the district court a notice of appeal from a judgment or final order. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b). The only exception to the appeal period is when the district court extends the time to appeal upon showing of excusable neglect. Id.

The district court entered its judgment on December 13, 2001; Smith’s notice of appeal was filed in July 2004, well beyond the ten day appeal period. Smith’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. In No. 04-7364, Smith appeals the district court’s order denying leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we dismiss both appeals. We further deny Smith’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to correct the record. 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  