
    Aaron HEADSPETH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; David E. Johnson, Chief, U.S. Probation Office, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 01-7705.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2002.
    Decided Jan. 29, 2002.
    Aaron Headspeth, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Matthew Schenning, United States Attorney, Richard Charles Kay, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Aaron Headspeth seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Headspeth’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States is a party, the 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 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 (I960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 5, 2001. Headspeth’s notice of appeal was filed on September 28, 2001. Because Headspeth 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.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.  