UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie YARBOROUGH, Defendant-Appellant, 379 F. App'x 310

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jessie Yarborough seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) 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 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.

RApp. 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 May 6, 2008, and the court’s orders denying reconsideration were entered on June 12, 2008, and January 7, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on September 24, 2009. Because Yarbor-ough failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

We deny Yarborough’s motions to place the case in abeyance and for a certificate of appealability. 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. . This court previously denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Yarborough's appeal of the district court's order denying reconsideration of the denial of his § 2255 motion. United States v. Yarborough, 330 Fed.Appx. 45 (4th Cir.2009) (No. 09-6236). .

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).