Case Name: Orlando Demon DUGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-21
Citations: 398 F. App'x 929
Docket Number: No. 10-6461
Parties: Orlando Demon DUGGINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 929–930

Head Matter:
Orlando Demon DUGGINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-6461.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2010.
Orlando Demon Duggins, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Orlando Demon Duggins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition for writ of error audita querela. 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 sixty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order, Fed. RApp. 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 order was entered on the docket on November 12, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on March 22, 2010. Because Duggins 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 the 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. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).