Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Troy EVANS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-21
Citations: 475 F. App'x 933
Docket Number: No. 12-7005
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Matthew Troy EVANS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 933–934

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Matthew Troy EVANS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 12-7005.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 16, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 21, 2012.
Matthew Troy Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Troy Evans seeks to appeal the district court's order granting in part and denying in part Evans' 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp 2012) motion. 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. RApp. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on March 29, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on June 6, 2012. Because Evans 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 the 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).