UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6077
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELIAS ECHEVERRIA-MENDEZ, a/k/a Francisco Javier Tiznado-
Partida, a/k/a Martin Pineda, a/k/a Juan Lopez Pineda, a/k/a
Elias Echevarria, a/k/a Elilas Mendez Echevarria,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00048-RLV-CH-1; 5:10-cv-
00109-RLV)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elias Echeverria-Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elias Echeverria-Mendez seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) 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 August 20, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on December 22, 2010. * Because Echeverria-Mendez
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.
*
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
DISMISSED
3