George Beckett v. Warden
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE BECKETT, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Respondents Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-00873-WDQ)
March 12, 2009
March 16, 2009
Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Beckett, Appellant Pro Se. James Everett Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: George Beckett seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. officer thirty or
In civil actions in which the United States or its agency after order is the to not a party, of the parties are accorded final P.
entry note an
4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). jurisdictional." These time periods are "mandatory and
Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,
264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court's order was entered on the docket on July 25, 2008. Beckett signed his notice of appeal on
September 13, 2008, and the notice was filed in the district court on September 19, 2008. Beckett stated in the notice of
appeal that he did not receive notice of the district court's dismissal of his § 2254 petition until "mid August." requests that he be afforded "an appeal." Beckett
We liberally construe
Beckett's statements as requesting an extension of the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). Bumgarner, 992 F.2d 899, 901 (4th Cir. See Washington v. 1989); Myers v.
Stephenson, 781 F.2d 1036, 1038-39 (4th Cir. 1986). 2
So construed, the motion for an extension of time was filed within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. * Because
the district court has not ruled on the motion for extension, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling the court to determine whether Beckett has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the thirty-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will We
then be returned to this court for further consideration. dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been 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).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?