Kleehammer had until May 1, 2013 to file a notice of appeal. On April 29, 2013, Kleehammer filed a timely notice of appeal, which expressed an intent to appeal from the district court’s November 2012 order, but did not mention the district court’s September 2010 order of dismissal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1) requires that a notice of appeal must “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). The dictates of Rule 3 are jurisdictional in nature. Gonzalez v. Thaler, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 641, 652, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012). Accordingly, “our jurisdiction is limited by the wording of the notice,” which does not raise the September 2010 order for our review. See New Phone Co. v. City of New York, 498 F.3d 127, 130-31 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Although Klee-hammer filed an amended notice
holding that a notice of appeal that referred only to the final judgment was sufficient to support review of earlier orders including an order involved in an unsuccessful attempt to take a premature appeal holding that where the district court decided two issues in the certified order but identified only the damages issue as the controlling question of law the court of appeals could nonetheless address the other issue holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review holding that notice of appeals failure to mention first of two district court orders barred consideration of claims decided in earlier order