UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6564
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAWN ALTEGO CATO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:09-cr-00225-TLW-1; 4:10-cv-70071-TLW)
Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shawn Altego Cato, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Altego Cato seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
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). “[T]he
timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,
214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on July 12, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on March 30,
2013. * Because Cato failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
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. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3