MEMORANDUM **

Susan Laforge appeals from the 6-month sentence and 30-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release, as well as the district court’s order denying her pro se motion to revise her term of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Laforge argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. Laforge’s notice of appeal was filed over four months after the entry of judgment. Her appeal of her sentence is, therefore, untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Because the government has properly objected to the untimeliness, we dismiss Laforge’s appeal of her sentence. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 942 (9th Cir. 2007).

Laforge’s pro se notice of appeal reflects that she is also challenging the district court’s denial of her motion to revise her term of supervised release. Laforge’s appeal from that denial is timely, but lacks merit. As the district court stated, it had no authority to terminate Laforge’s term of supervised release at the time she filed her motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) (a district court may terminate a term of *345 supervised release but only “after the expiration of one year of supervised release”).

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.