
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen D. SATCHER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-7469.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.
    Decided: Nov. 26, 2013.
    Stephen D. Satcher, Appellant pro se. Odessa Palmer Jackson, Office of the United States Attorney, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Stephen D. Satcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion as untimely. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2860, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 29, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on September 12, 2013. Because Satcher failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Satcher’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, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
     