UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6030
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EMILIO BAUTISTA-TERAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00177-CMC-6; 3:09-cv-70068-CMC)
Submitted: May 22, 2013 Decided: June 24, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emilio Bautista-Teran, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C.
Moore, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emilio Bautista-Teran seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2012). 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 November 12, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on
December 20, 2012. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
Because Bautista-Teran failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. To the extent Bautista-Teran moves for
authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2006) to file a
successive § 2255 motion, such motion is denied. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3