                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6809


ALEXANDER BANNERMAN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN J. M. STOUFFER; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,

                    Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00042-JFM)


Submitted: August 24, 2017                                        Decided: August 29, 2017


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alexander Bannerman, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Alexander Bannerman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

       Parties are accorded 30 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 May 12, 2017. The notice

of appeal was filed on June 13, 2017. * Because Bannerman failed to file a timely notice

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

proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED




       *
        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
