UNPUBLISHED

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 CAROLINA 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 

MCKENZIE; 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.

Appeals 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, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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’adFaltas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders 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 

appeals 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 appeal. 

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 

final 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), “the 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 orders 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 notices of 

appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

periods, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss 
4

the appeals. 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