**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1233** 

MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD

- FALTAS , Party

- in

- Interest

– Appellant, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff,

v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; NIKKI HALEY, in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina , Defendants

- Appellees
.

**No. 12**  **- 1243** 

MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD

- FALTAS , Party

- in

- Interest

– Appellant, and
LOW COUNTRY IMMIGRATION COALITION; MUJERES DE TRIUNFO; NUEVOS CAMINOS; SOUTH CAROLI NA VICTIM ASSISTANCE NETWORK; SOUTH CAROLINA HISPANIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; SOUTHERN REGIONAL JOINT BOARD OF WORKERS UNITED; JANE DOE, No. 1; Jane Doe, No. 2; JOHN DOE, No. 1; YAJAIRA BENET

- SMITH; KELLER BARRON; JOHN MC KENZIE; SANDRA JONES Plaintiffs,2 and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Party

- in

- Interest,

v. JAMES ALTON CANNON, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Charleston County; SCARLETT A. WILSON, in her official capacity as Solicitor of the Ninth Judicial Circuit; ALAN WILSON, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; NIKKI HALEY, in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina , Defendants

- Appellees.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 02958

- RMG; 2:11

- cv - 02779

- RMG )

Submitted : August 22 , 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, an d DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Marie Therese Assa'ad

- Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert D. Cook, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, James Emory Smith, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa’ad

Faltas seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying her motions to intervene in two district court actions , and its order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion
. We dismiss the appeal s for lack of jurisdiction because Assa’ad

- Faltas did not timely appeal
. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an app eal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 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 fi nal judgment or order
. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)
. Although the district court may extend the appeal period under Fed . R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopen 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 s were entered on the docket

on November 7, 2011, November 10, 2011, and December 14, 2011, respectively
. The notice of appeal was filed on February 17, 2012. Because Assa’ad

- Faltas failed to file timely notice s of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period s , we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss4 the appeal s . We also deny as moot Assa’ad

- Faltas’s motions to file a surreply brief and to place the appeals in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United
States , 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012). 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