US v. Antonio Hall
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.  [17-6312]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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
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?