UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7612
TERRANCE SYKES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ZYCH, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:13-cv-00207-SGW-RSB)
Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrance Sykes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrance Sykes seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, denying
his motion for reconsideration, and denying his motion to
correct a clerical error. 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 last of the district court’s orders that Sykes
challenges was entered on the docket on June 5, 2013. The
notice of appeal was filed on September 20, 2013. * Because Sykes
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to
*
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
proceed in forma pauperis and 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