UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS ROBERT WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00259-FL-2; 5:10-cv-00362-FL)
Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Robert Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Robert Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2012) motion and the district court’s order denying an
extension of time to note an appeal. We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, a notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days
after the entry of a 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 on Williams’s § 2255 motion
was entered on March 29, 2011. Williams’s motion for an
extension of time was filed on August 2, 2011. * The district
court’s order denying the motion was entered on August 18, 2011.
Williams filed a notice of appeal from that order on June 8,
2012. Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal
*
This is the postmark date on the envelope in which the
motion was mailed to the district court. See Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that a prisoner’s notice of
appeal is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison
authorities for mailing to the court).
2
from either order and failed to obtain an extension or reopening
of either 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.
DISMISSED
3