Craig Andre Neal v. Warden Joyner
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000217840-2] Originating case number: 0:17-cv-02352-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000311409]. Mailed to: Craig Neal. [17-7579]
Appeal: 17-7579
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/13/2018
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7579
CRAIG ANDRE NEAL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN JOYNER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (0:17-cv-02352-RMG)
Submitted: April 6, 2018
Decided: June 13, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig Andre Neal, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-7579
Doc: 14
Filed: 06/13/2018
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Craig Andre Neal, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and summarily dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2012) petition seeking to challenge his mandatory minimum life sentence. The district
court determined that Neal was unable to challenge his sentence under the savings clause
of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012).
In light of our recent decision in United States v.
Wheeler, No. 16-6073, __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 1514418 (4th Cir. Mar. 28, 2018), we
vacate the district court’s order and remand the case for reconsideration in accordance
with Wheeler. We grant Neal leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
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?