UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6127

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JIMMY EUGENE PARKER, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00158-TDS-1; 1:16- cv-00493-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: April 17, 2018 Decided: April 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Eugene Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jimmy Eugene Parker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his

(2012)

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 60 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 November 3, 2017. The

notice of appeal was filed on January 30, 2018. * Because Parker failed to file a timely

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

Parker’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 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,

(1988).

2