Filed: Jan. 12, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY LEE GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-99-558; CA-02-1988-4-22) Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 12, 2005 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Remanded by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY LEE GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-99-558; CA-02-1988-4-22) Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 12, 2005 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Remanded by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRY LEE GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-99-558; CA-02-1988-4-22)
Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 12, 2005
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry Lee Green, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terry Lee Green seeks to appeal the dismissal of his
motion characterized by the district court as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court’s order was
entered on February 19, 2004. However, Green did not file his
notice of appeal until, at the earliest, July 28, 2004,* which is
outside the sixty-day appeal period under Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(B), and beyond the thirty-day period allowed under Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(5). See Shah v. Hutto,
722 F.2d 1167, 1168 (4th Cir.
1983) (holding that a motion to extend the time to file a notice of
appeal must be filed no later than thirty days after the expiration
of the original appeal period in order for a court of appeals to
have jurisdiction over the appeal).
Green’s notice of appeal, which alleges that he did not
timely receive notice of the dismissal of his action, may be
properly construed as a motion to reopen the time to note an appeal
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). United States v. Feuver,
236 F.3d
725, 729 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we remand the case
to the district court in order for that court to determine whether
Green can satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
Ogden v. San Juan County,
32 F.3d 452, 454 (10th Cir. 1994). We
*
At the earliest, Green filed his notice of appeal on July 28,
2004, the date he states in his certificate of service that he
placed it in the prison mail system. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1);
Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
- 2 -
express no opinion as to whether Green has met the requirements of
Rule 4(a)(6). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned
to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
- 3 -