UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7583
PERCIVAL NORMAN FENTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-7594
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PERCIVAL NORMAN FENTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke and Harrisonburg. Glen E.
Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:12-cv-00106-GEC; 5:07-cr-
00025-GEC-1; 5:12-cv-80435-GEC-RSB)
Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Percival Norman Fenton, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Percival Norman Fenton
appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to review
and correct the restitution order and to reconsider the court’s
denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and the
court’s order denying his subsequent motion for a certificate of
appealability.
With respect to the district court’s order denying
Fenton’s motion to review and correct the restitution order and
to reconsider, 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 June 26, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on September
4, 2012. Because Fenton failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal of the court’s June 26 order.
3
With respect to the district court’s order denying
Fenton’s motion for a certificate of appealability, the order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a movant satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
movant must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Fenton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
4
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
5