UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7181

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MAHDI LAWSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00702-RWT-1; 8:17-cv-00122-RWT)

Submitted: December 20, 2018 Decided: December 27, 2018

Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mahdi Lawson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Mahdi Lawson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his

(2012) motion and denying his subsequent motion that the district court

construed as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. We dismiss, for lack of

jurisdiction, the appeal of the district court’s order denying Lawson’s § 2255 motion

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 April 16, 2018. The notice of

appeal was filed on September 5, 2018. * Because Lawson failed to file a timely notice of

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

of this order.

Lawson also seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion styled as

a “Motion to Dismiss (Count III) for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction” as an

unauthorized successive

motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

* 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 appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner

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 prisoner 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 Lawson has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of

this order.

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