Filed: Aug. 11, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7690 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JUSTIN HAWKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-16) Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Justin Hawkins, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7690 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JUSTIN HAWKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-16) Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Justin Hawkins, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7690
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUSTIN HAWKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-98-16)
Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Justin Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Justin Hawkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order
construing his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) as a
successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it
for lack of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal was received in the
district court shortly after expiration of the appeal period.
Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266
(1988), the notice is considered filed as of the date Hawkins
properly delivered it to prison officials for mailing to the court.
The record does not reveal if or when Hawkins complied with the
requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). Accordingly, we remand
the case for the district court to obtain this information from the
parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under Fed.
R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack. The record, as
supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration.
REMANDED
- 2 -