Case Name: Charles A. BIRDSONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry PONTON, Warden of Nottoway Correction Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-30
Citations: 656 F. App'x 10
Docket Number: No. 16-6337
Parties: Charles A. BIRDSONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry PONTON, Warden of Nottoway Correction Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER,.DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 656
Pages: 10–11

Head Matter:
Charles A. BIRDSONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry PONTON, Warden of Nottoway Correction Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6337
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 25, 2016
Decided: August 30, 2016
Charles A. Birdsong, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER,.DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles A. Birdsong seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 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), 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on March 1, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on March 1, 2016. Because Birdsong failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the 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
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, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).