Case Name: Kevin Wayne MAYNARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent STANCIL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 671 F. App'x 45
Docket Number: No. 16-6900
Parties: Kevin Wayne MAYNARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent STANCIL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
Kevin Wayne MAYNARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent STANCIL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6900
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 17, 2016
Decided: November 23, 2016
Kevin Wayne Maynard, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Wayne Maynard seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 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 was entered on the docket on February 22, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on July 1, 2016. Because Maynard failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 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
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).