UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-8054
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD ANTHONY FALICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00244-GCM-1)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Anthony Falice, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F.
Shappert, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.;
Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Anthony Falice seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
second or successive and his motion to correct tax assessment.
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 orders were entered on the docket
on October 19, 2012, and February 6, 2013. The notice of appeal
was filed on November 7, 2013. * Because Falice failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we deny his motion to appoint counsel and
*
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,
276 (1988).
2
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3