                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-6564


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

SHAWN ALTEGO CATO,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:09-cr-00225-TLW-1; 4:10-cv-70071-TLW)


Submitted:   July 25, 2013                 Decided:   July 30, 2013



Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Shawn Altego Cato, Appellant Pro Se.     Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (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

      *
       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
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
