Mario Ramos Hinojos, Jr. v. NFN Bush, Warden

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-02960-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Hinojos. [999711093] [15-6867]

Appeal: 15-6867

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6867

MARIO RAMOS HINOJOS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NFN BUSH, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:14-cv-02960-DCN)

Submitted:

September 15, 2015

Decided:

December 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Ramos Hinojos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John
Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6867

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mario Ramos Hinojos, Jr., a South Carolina inmate, seeks to
appeal

the

district

court’s

order

accepting

the

magistrate

judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Hinojos’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition.
state

prisoner

In a federal habeas proceeding brought by a
against

state

prison

officials,

parties

have

thirty days following the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order in which to file a notice of appeal.

Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

However, if a party moves for an extension

of

within

time

original

to

appeal

appeal

period

30

and

days

after

demonstrates

expiration

excusable

of

neglect

the
or

good cause, a district court may extend the time to file a
notice of appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Washington v.

Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900–01 (4th Cir. 1989).
The district court’s final judgment was entered on April
10, 2015.

Hinojos filed his notice of appeal on May 16, 2015,∗

after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period but within the
excusable neglect period.

Hinojos’s notice of appeal contained

language

be

that

can

fairly

extension of time to appeal.

construed

as

a

request

for

an

Accordingly, we remand this case

∗

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding
that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is filed when the
prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the
court clerk).

2

Appeal: 15-6867

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

to the district court for the limited purpose of determining
whether Hinojos has demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause
warranting

an

extension

of

the

30-day

appeal

period.

The

record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for
further consideration.
REMANDED

3