                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7695


CORNELIUS LEROY CHASE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

BOBBY SHERON, Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General
of Maryland,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:11-cv-02977-RWT)


Submitted:   April 16, 2015                 Decided:   April 20, 2015


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cornelius Leroy Chase, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

        Cornelius Leroy Chase seeks to appeal the district court’s

order       denying   his   28   U.S.C.    §    2254    (2012)      petition    without

prejudice.          We    dismiss   the   appeal       for   lack    of    jurisdiction

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

        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), 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

November 21, 2011.           The notice of appeal was filed on November

5, 2014. *        Because Chase failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal.           We dispense with oral argument because the

facts       and   legal   contentions     are    adequately         presented   in   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.



                                           2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
