UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7235


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.    Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1; 1:12-cv-00375-
GCM)


Submitted:   November 19, 2015            Decided:   November 24, 2015


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.      Amy Elizabeth
Ray,   Assistant  United    States  Attorney,  Asheville,   North
Carolina, Melissa    Louise   Rikard,  Assistant   United  States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order     denying   relief   on    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 60 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

February 26, 2015.         The notice of appeal was filed on August 3,

2015. *    Because Burgess 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 

, 276 (1988).



                                         2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3