
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy Anthony NEWMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6987.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 10, 2003.
    Troy Anthony Newman, Appellant Pro Se. William Edward Fitzpatrick, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Troy Anthony Newman seeks to appeal the district court’s July 26, 2000, order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and the district court’s April 3, 2001, order denying his motion for reconsideration.

As to Newman’s appeal of the district court’s July 26, 2000, order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), when the United States 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, unless: (1) under Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4), the district court, upon the defendant’s showing of good cause or excusable neglect, grants the defendant a thirty day extension; (2) under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), the district court extends the appeal period; or (3) under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court reopens the appeal period. This appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Deft of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 267, 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 26, 2000. Newman’s notice of appeal was filed on June 6, 2001. Newman failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and he did not seek an extension or reopening of the appeal period. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Newman’s appeal as to this order. See United States v. Newman, No. CR-99-22-A (E.D. Va. filed July 25, 2000, entered July 26, 2000).

As to Newman’s appeal of the district court’s April 3, 2001, order denying his motion for reconsideration, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Newman, No. CR-99-22-A (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 2, 2001, entered Apr. 3, 2001).

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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.  