Case Name: Aubin LIBERTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-09
Citations: 415 F. App'x 516
Docket Number: No. 10-7714
Parties: Aubin LIBERTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 516–517

Head Matter:
Aubin LIBERTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-7714.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2011.
Decided: March 9, 2011.
Aubin Liberte, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Aubin Liberte seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and its subsequent order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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), 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 denying Liberte's Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket on October 22, 2010. The no tice of appeal was filed on November 28, 2010. Because Liberte failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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
Because Liberte is incarcerated, he is deemed to have filed the notice of appeal on the date he deposited it in the prison mail system. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1). Liberte signed and dated his notice of appeal November 23, 2010. Because this date is the earliest date on which Liberte could have deposited his notice of appeal in the prison mail system, we have afforded Liberte the presumption that he filed his notice of appeal on November 23, 2010.