                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7018


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MARK BENJAMIN HEMPHILL,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:99-cr-00659-CMC-6; 0:12-cv-03120-CMC)


Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 25, 2013


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mark Benjamin Hemphill, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Mark Benjamin Hemphill seeks to appeal the district

court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 &

Supp. 2013) petition as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)

motion and dismissing it without prejudice as successive and

unauthorized.      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 (2007).

            The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on February 13, 2013.        The notice of appeal was filed on June 5,

2013. *   Because Hemphill failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

      *
      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
(1988).



                                          2
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




                                       3
