UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TROY LAMONT MURPHY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W.
Flanagan, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00241-FL-2; 5:12-cv-00332-
FL)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Lamont Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy Lamont Murphy seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2012) motion. We dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties in
civil cases such as this one are accorded sixty days after the
entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an
appeal, 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 dismissing Murphy’s suit
was entered on the docket on July 13, 2012. The notice of
appeal was filed, at earliest, on September 18, 2012 — seven
days late. * Murphy filed no motion tolling the applicable time
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) or (5). We therefore lack
jurisdiction to consider Murphy’s claims.
*
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
(1988).
2
Accordingly, we dismiss Murphy’s 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