Filed: Sep. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6695 FERNANDO GRADY HORTON, Petitioner – Appellant, v. FRANK BISHOP, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-03538-WDQ) Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6695 FERNANDO GRADY HORTON, Petitioner – Appellant, v. FRANK BISHOP, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-03538-WDQ) Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6695
FERNANDO GRADY HORTON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
FRANK BISHOP, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:13-cv-03538-WDQ)
Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fernando Grady Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fernando Grady Horton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing Horton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The
notice of appeal was received in this court shortly after
expiration of the appeal period. Because Horton 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 Horton 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