US v. Daniel McNeil

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00406-WO-1,1:13-cv-00718-WO-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Daniel McNeil. [999785610] [15-7638]

Appeal: 15-7638

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL JUNIOR MCNEIL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00406-WO-1; 1:13-cv-00718WO-LPA)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Junior McNeil, Appellant Pro Se.
Lisa Blue Boggs,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7638

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Daniel Junior McNeil, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the

district

court’s

order

adopting

the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion.

Parties in a civil action in which the United States is

a party have 60 days following entry of judgment in which to
file a notice of appeal.
timely

filing

of

a

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

notice

of

jurisdictional requirement.”

appeal

in

a

civil

“[T]he

case

is

a

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

214 (2007).
Because McNeil is incarcerated, the notice of appeal is
considered filed on 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, 276 (1988).

The record does not

conclusively reveal when McNeil delivered 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