UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7583

PERCIVAL NORMAN FENTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 12-7594

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PERCIVAL NORMAN FENTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke and Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:12-cv-00106-GEC; 5:07-cr- 00025-GEC-1; 5:12-cv-80435-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Percival Norman Fenton, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Percival Norman Fenton

appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to review

and correct the restitution order and to reconsider the court’s

denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and the

court’s order denying his subsequent motion for a certificate of

appealability.

With respect to the district court’s order denying

Fenton’s motion to review and correct the restitution order and

to reconsider, 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,

(2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on June 26, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on September

4, 2012. Because Fenton failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal

period, we dismiss the appeal of the court’s June 26 order.

3 With respect to the district court’s order denying

Fenton’s motion for a certificate of appealability, the order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies

relief on the merits, a movant satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the

movant must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Fenton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

4 presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

5