Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn Altego CATO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-30
Citations: 536 F. App'x 333
Docket Number: No. 13-6564
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn Altego CATO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn Altego CATO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6564.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2013.
Decided: July 30, 2013.
Shawn Altego Cato, Appellant pro se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Altego Cato seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) 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. 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 was entered on the docket on July 12, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on March 30, 2013. Because Cato 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 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).