Filed: Jul. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6686 CHARLES A. RIPPY-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00058-CCE-LPA) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles A. Rippy-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6686 CHARLES A. RIPPY-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00058-CCE-LPA) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles A. Rippy-B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6686
CHARLES A. RIPPY-BEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00058-CCE-LPA)
Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles A. Rippy-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles A. Rippy-Bey seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The notice of appeal was received in the district
court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Because
Rippy-Bey is incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of
the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266 (1988). The record does not reveal when Rippy-Bey
gave the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing.
Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of
allowing 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