Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Padgett, 19-4858 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-4858 Visitors: 23
Filed: May 22, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL L. PADGETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-166, CA-01-4) Submitted: April 28, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrel
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7934 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARRELL L. PADGETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-166, CA-01-4) Submitted: April 28, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell L. Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Darrell L. Padgett appeals from the district court’s order on remand finding that Padgett failed to show excusable neglect or good cause sufficient to excuse his untimely filed notice of appeal. However, in our opinion ordering the limited remand, we stated that the remand was for the purpose of supplementing the record on appeal, the merits of which would be decided after the district court made its determination. Since we retained jurisdiction over the case while the district court considered the limited issue on remand, the district court’s order on remand is unappealable. The proper forum for Padgett to pursue his claim that the district court erred is in the original appeal, where, in fact, the identical issues have already been raised. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and deny Padgett’s motion to transmit the docket sheet. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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