US v. Travis Foote

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case numbers: 1:14-cr-00015-JKB-1,1:15-cv-03168-JKB Copies to all parties and the district court. Mailed to: Appellant. [999979573] [16-6305]

Appeal: 16-6305

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6305

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS LAMONT FOOTE, a/k/a Cash,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:14-cr-00015-JKB-1; 1:15-cv-03168-JKB)

Submitted:

August 31, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge,
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Decided:

KEENAN,

December 2, 2016

Circuit

Judge,

and

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Lamont Foote, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6305

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Travis Lamont Foote seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
Parties to a civil action in which the United States or its
officer or agency is a party are accorded 60 days after the
entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an
appeal.

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

However, the district

court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party
moves for an extension of the appeal period within 30 days after
the expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates
excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension.

Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(5); see Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899,
900-01 (4th Cir. 1989).
appeal

in

a

civil

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of

case

is

a

jurisdictional

requirement.”

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The

district

court’s

final

docket on December 24, 2015.

judgment

was

entered

on

the

Foote’s notice of appeal was filed

on February 24, 2016, * after the expiration of the 60-day appeal
period

but

within

the

excusable

neglect

period.

During

the

excusable neglect period and concurrently with the filing of his
notice of appeal in the district court, Foote separately filed
in this court a motion for extension of time to file a motion
*

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

Appeal: 16-6305

for

a

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/02/2016

certificate

of

Pg: 3 of 3

appealability

(“motion

for

extension”).

The motion for extension contains language that we liberally
construe as a Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) motion for an extension of
time to file an appeal.

Accordingly, we remand this case to the

district court for the limited purpose of determining whether
Foote

has

warranting

demonstrated
an

extension

excusable
of

the

neglect

60-day

or

appeal

good
period.

cause
The

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

3