UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7235
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1; 1:12-cv-00375-
GCM)
Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth
Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina, Melissa Louise Rikard, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s 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 60 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
February 26, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on August 3,
2015. * Because Burgess 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
*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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988).
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3