
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Salvador CAMPOS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7430.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 12, 2004.
    Decided: May 26, 2004.
    Salvador Campos, Appellant pro se.
    Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges,
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion,
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Salvador Campos seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely filed. 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, a notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after 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 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 8, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on June 10, 2003. Because Campos failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 
      
       For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
     