Filed: Dec. 24, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6867 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. SHAMSADEEN IBN PURVIS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:04-cr-00495-AW-1; 8:08-cv-00170-AW) Submitted: December 4, 2008 Decided: December 24, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shamsa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6867 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. SHAMSADEEN IBN PURVIS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:04-cr-00495-AW-1; 8:08-cv-00170-AW) Submitted: December 4, 2008 Decided: December 24, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shamsad..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6867
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHAMSADEEN IBN PURVIS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:04-cr-00495-AW-1; 8:08-cv-00170-AW)
Submitted: December 4, 2008 Decided: December 24, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shamsadeen Ibn Purvis, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Pauze,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shamsadeen Ibn Purvis seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
The district court based its dismissal on Purvis’s failure to
supplement his motion to explain why it should not be considered
untimely after being ordered by the court to do so. Although
Purvis filed a timely response in compliance with the court’s
order and provided evidence that his § 2255 motion was timely
filed, the response was inadvertently overlooked.
After noting a timely appeal, Purvis filed a motion
for reentry of order in the district court requesting that the
court vacate its dismissal order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and
reenter it, so that he could file a timely motion to alter or
amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which he claimed he
was prevented from doing by the court’s failure to send him a
copy of its order within the ten-day period. The district court
denied the motion without prejudice but requested leave from
this court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) to correct its mistake
arising from oversight or omission.
We grant such leave and remand to the district court
for the purpose of correcting its mistake and granting relief
under Rule 60. See Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp.,
164 F.3d 887
(4th Cir. 1999). The record, as supplemented, will then be
returned to this court for further consideration. If still
2
dissatisfied, the parties can also appeal to this court from any
subsequent final order. See id.
REMANDED
3