Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Cherisson, 05-6725 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6725 Visitors: 64
Filed: Dec. 02, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6725 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND CHERISSON, a/k/a Haitian James, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-94-97) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6725 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND CHERISSON, a/k/a Haitian James, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-94-97) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Cherisson, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Raymond Cherisson seeks to appeal the district court’s July 8, 2004, dismissal of his “Motion for habeas corpus relief based on newly reliable evidence and/or 60(b)(6),” which motion Cherisson filed on March 16, 2004. Cherisson filed his notice of appeal on April 18, 2005, over nine months after the district court’s dismissal of the motion, together with a separate motion of the same date to file his notice of appeal out of time. As the district court has not ruled on Cherisson’s April 18, 2005 motion to file an untimely appeal, this court is without jurisdiction at this juncture to review the dismissal of the Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of ruling on Cherisson’s motion to file an untimely appeal. REMANDED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer