UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-6584


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00003-MHL-1)


Submitted: August 22, 2019                                        Decided: August 27, 2019


Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice 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 September 14, 2018. The

notice of appeal was filed on April 15, 2019. Because Nabaya failed to file a timely notice

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

We also deny Nabaya’s motions for a certificate of appealability, for judgment on the

pleadings, to take judicial notice, for injunctive relief, and to expedite 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