
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emilio BAUTISTA-TERAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-6030.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 22, 2013.
    Decided: June 24, 2013.
    Emilio Bautista-Teran, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. Moore, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emilio Bautista-Teran seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012). 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. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 12, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on December 20, 2012. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because Bautista-Teran failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. To the extent Bautis-ta-Teran moves for authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2006) to file a successive § 2255 motion, such motion is denied. 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.  