United States of America v. Elver Diaz-Vega, a/k/a Elver Vega-Diaz, a/k/a Elver Mendez-Vega, a/k/a Al, a/k/a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7538
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ELVER DIAZ-VEGA, a/k/a Elver Vega-Diaz, a/k/a Elver
Mendez-Vega, a/k/a Al, a/k/a Raymond Sanchez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00930-CMC-2; 3:12-cv-03590-CMC)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elver Diaz-Vega, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Zalkin Hitt, Stanley D.
Ragsdale, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, James Chris Leventis, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Elver Diaz-Vega seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
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. 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 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on May 23, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on
September 19, 2013.* Because Diaz-Vega failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
* 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
(1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --