UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6757


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

AARON MICHAEL BURNS,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cr-00009-RBS-DEM-1; 2:16-
cv-00578-RBS)


Submitted: November 21, 2017                                Decided: November 27, 2017


Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Aaron M. Burns, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Aaron Michael Burns seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motions for a change of venue. 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 orders were entered on the docket on November 10 and

November 21, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on June 1, 2017. * Because Burns

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




       *
        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, 

(1988).

                                              2