
    Marie Therese ASSA’AD-FALTAS, Party-in-Interest-Appellant, and United States of America, Plaintiff, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Nikki Haley, in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees. Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Party-in-Interest-Appellant, and Low Country Immigration Coalition; Mujeres De Triunfo; Nuevos Caminos; South Carolina Victim Assistance Network; South Carolina Hispanic Leadership Council; Service Employees International Union; Southern Regional Joint Board Of Workers United; Jane Doe, No. 1; Jane Doe, No. 2; John Doe, No. 1; Yajaira Benet-Smith; Keller Barron; John Mckenzie; Sandra Jones, Plaintiffs, and United States of America, Party-in-Interest, v. James Alton Cannon, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Charleston County; Scarlett A. Wilson, in her official capacity as Solicitor of the Ninth Judicial Circuit; Alan Wilson, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; State of South Carolina; Nikki Haley, in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 12-1233, 12-1243.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 22, 2012.
    Decided: Aug. 24, 2012.
    Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert D. Cook, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, James Emory Smith, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying her motions to intervene in two district court actions, and its order denying her Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because Assa’ad-Faltas did not timely appeal.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 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). Although the district court may extend the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopen the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6), “the 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. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on November 7, 2011, November 10, 2011, and December 14, 2011, respectively. The notice of appeal was filed on February 17, 2012. Because Assa’ad-Faltas failed to file timely notices of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal periods, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals. We also deny as moot Assa’ad-Faltas’s motions to file a surreply brief and to place the appeals in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  