US v. Antonio Hall

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00744-RDB-1,1:14-cv-01693-RDB. Copies to all parties and the district court. Mailed to: Antonio Hall. [1000156814] [17-6312]

Appeal: 17-6312

Doc: 14

Filed: 09/18/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6312

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO R. HALL, a/k/a Mack,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00744-RDB-1; 1:14-cv-01693-RDB)

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Decided: September 18, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio R. Hall, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6312

Doc: 14

Filed: 09/18/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Antonio R. Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion. Although the docketed notice of appeal was received after the
expiration of the appeal period, Hall asserts that he previously delivered his original
notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on January 20, 2017, within the 60-day
appeal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Because Hall is incarcerated, the notice is
considered filed as of 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 (1988). The record
does not conclusively establish that Hall in fact provided a notice of appeal to prison
officials for mailing on January 20, 2017. Accordingly, we remand the case for the
limited purpose of allowing the district court to make this finding and to determine
whether Hall timely filed his notice of appeal 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