Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus Robert WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-21
Citations: 480 F. App'x 738
Docket Number: No. 12-7041
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus Robert WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 480
Pages: 738–739

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus Robert WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-7041.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 16, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 21, 2012.
Marcus Robert Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Marcus Robert Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion and the district court's order denying an extension of time to note an appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, a notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of a 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 order on Williams's § 2255 motion was entered on March 29, 2011. Williams's motion for an extension of time was filed on August 2, 2011. The district court's order denying the motion was entered on August 18, 2011. Williams filed a notice of appeal from that order on June 8, 2012. Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal from either order and failed to obtain an extension or reopening of either 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.
This is the postmark date on the envelope in which the motion was mailed to the district court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (holding that a prisoner's notice of appeal is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing to the court).