                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-6461


ORLANDO DEMON DUGGINS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cv-02823-WMN)


Submitted:   October 14, 2010             Decided:   October 21, 2010


Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Orlando Demon Duggins, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. 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 (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

     *
       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
(1988).



                                          2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                       DISMISSED




                               3
