UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARY E. HUDSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                                      No. 95-1311

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-94-447-WMN)

Argued: December 6, 1995

Decided: January 16, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Celicia G. Hoover-Hankerson, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
for Appellant. Christine Manuelian, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lynne A. Battaglia,
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Mary E. Hudson, asserts a claim for race discrimination
arising from the termination of her employment with the appellee, the
National Security Agency ("NSA"). Following notification that her
employment was about to be terminated, Hudson filed an Equal
Employment Opportunity complaint on February 11, 1987, alleging
race discrimination. On or about October 22, 1993, a final agency
decision (right-to-sue letter) rejecting Hudson's claim was issued. A
copy of that decision was hand delivered to the office of Robert
Bloom, Hudson's attorney, on October 26, 1993.

Hudson received a letter from Bloom dated November 15, 1993,
indicating that an adverse final agency decision had been rendered.
Bloom's letter stated that the right-to-sue letter was enclosed and
informed Hudson that,

          if this matter is to be pursued any further, it will be neces-
          sary to file suit. Because of my heavy caseload, I am not in
          a position to prepare and file a suit . . . . If you wish for me
          to identify a lawyer who is in a position to take this case to
          trial, please let me know at your earliest convenience.

J.A. at 20. While Hudson claims that there was no enclosure with
Bloom's letter, she acknowledges receiving a copy of the right-to-sue
letter on December 1, 1993. See Appellant's Br. at 6. Hudson filed
suit, pro se, on February 23, 1994, 120 days after her attorney
received the final agency determination.

The right-to-sue letter clearly stated that Hudson had ninety days
from receipt of the decision to file a civil action. First, the letter stated
that, "[i]f you chose to file a civil action, you must do so (1) within
90 calendar days of receipt of this final decision if no appeal to the

                      2
EEOC has been filed." J.A at 26. Second, the last sentence of the let-
ter emphasized that, "the civil action MUST BE FILED WITHIN
NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the Commis-
sion's decision." J.A. at 27.

Hudson concedes that her claim is untimely, but argues that her
failure to file within ninety days should be excused under equitable
tolling principles. See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

, 96 (1990). The district court rejected Hudson's equitable toll-
ing claim and granted NSA's motion to dismiss, reasoning that Hud-
son alleged no misconduct on the part of NSA and that Hudson, who
acknowledged receiving the right-to-sue letter on December 1, had
"ample time" to file a suit by the January 24, 1994, deadline. See J.A.
at 14-15.

We have carefully considered the arguments raised by both parties.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed on the reasoning of the
district court.

AFFIRMED

                    3