
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Roshaun REID, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-7994.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 5, 2016.
    Decided: Feb. 19, 2016.
    Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Jimmie Ewing, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Roshaun Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s July 18, 2013 order dismissing his July 2013 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive, December 9, 2013 order treating his December 2013 motion to reopen as a successive § 2255 motion and dismissing the motion, February 26, 2014 order treating his February 2014 letter as a successive § 2255 motion and dismissing the motion, and May 12, 2015 order denying his May 2015 motions for an evidentiary hearing and to amend and correct. 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, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on July 18, 2013, December 9, 2013, February 26, 2014, and May 12, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on December 7, 2015. Because Reid 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 postmark date appearing on the envelope containing the undated 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, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
     