Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Robert LOFTIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-26
Citations: 590 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 13-7496
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Robert LOFTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 590
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Robert LOFTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7496.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 26, 2015.
Kenneth Robert Loftin, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
, Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Robert Loftin seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's orders were entered .on the docket on May 16, 2013, and July 11, 2013, respectively. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on September 10, 2013. Because Loftin 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.
Loftin stated on his notice of appeal that he submitted it on September 10, 2013. We presume that this is the earliest date it could have been delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).