                                       UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                        No. 17-6735


JAMES TRAVIS,

             Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

             Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:15-cv-02733-TDC)


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


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Travis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       James Travis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 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 April 28, 2017. Travis

deposited his notice of appeal in the prison’s internal mailing system at the earliest on

May 31, 2017. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

Because Travis 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 materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                                 DISMISSED




                                              2
