487 FAPPX 99 - United States v. Bostic

¶1Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

¶2Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

¶3Bernard Bostic seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his “Motion to Rectify the Record.” We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

¶4When 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).

¶5The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 3, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on August 19, 2012.* Because Bostic 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

¶6DISMISSED.

¶7 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).