UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7033


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

SANCHEZ OZELL MCPHERSON, a/k/a Delano Jacob McPherson, a/k/a
Chez, a/k/a Delano MacPherson,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-01348-PMD-1; 2:13-cv-00641-PMD)


Submitted:   November 20, 2014            Decided:   November 25, 2014


Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sanchez Ozell McPherson, Appellant Pro Se.             Sean   Kittrell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,         South   Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Sanchez Ozell McPherson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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, 

,

214 (2007).

            The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on January 21, 2014.           The notice of appeal was filed, at the

earliest, on July 1, 2014. *           Because McPherson failed to file a

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening

of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny his motion

for   appointment   of      counsel.        We    dispense    with   oral   argument

      *
       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, 

(1988).



                                            2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.



                                                       DISMISSED




                               3