Filed: Aug. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6655 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AMIE LYNN NIETO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-73; CA-04-19-2) Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amie Lynn Nieto, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6655 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AMIE LYNN NIETO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-73; CA-04-19-2) Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amie Lynn Nieto, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6655
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AMIE LYNN NIETO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-73; CA-04-19-2)
Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amie Lynn Nieto, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Amie Lynn Nieto seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Nieto properly delivered it to prison officials for mailing to
the court. The record does not reveal if or when Nieto 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 -