Case Name: Douglas FAUCONIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; Douglas F. Gansler, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-14
Citations: 510 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 13-6022
Parties: Douglas FAUCONIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; Douglas F. Gansler, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 510
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
Douglas FAUCONIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; Douglas F. Gansler, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 13-6022.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 7, 2013.
Decided: Feb. 14, 2013.
Douglas Fauconier, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General Of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Fauconier seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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 judg ment 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 December 1, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on December 27, 2012. Because Fauconier 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.
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).