                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6199


ANNETTE MICHELLE MCCARTHY,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN TAMMY BROWN,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00300-jct-mfu)


Submitted:   April 21, 2011                 Decided:   April 27, 2011


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Annette Michelle McCarthy, Appellant Pro Se.    Richard Carson
Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Annette Michelle McCarthy seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition.       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   December   10,     2010.    The    notice    of   appeal      was   filed   on

February 7, 2011. *        Because McCarthy 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




      *
       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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988).



                                        2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED




                                  3
