United States v. Gerson Martinez-Turcio

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6337 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GERSON GUZMAN MARTINEZ-TURCIO, a/k/a Jerson Martinez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:10-cr-00054-HMH-8; 6:13-cv-01140-HMH) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerson Guzman Martinez-Turcio, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gerson Guzman Martinez-Turcio seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C § 2255 (2012) 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 December 13, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on February 25, 2014. Because Martinez-Turcio 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2