Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Wilson v. Wood, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded a case back to the district court to determine if a notice of appeal was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule. Keith Wilson, a prisoner, sought to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his habeas petition. The notice of appeal was received shortly after the filing deadline. Because Wilson is incarcerated, his notice of appeal would be considered timely if delivered to prison officials for mailing before the deadline. However, the record did not indicate when Wilson delivered the notice. The appeals court remanded to the district court to obtain this information and determine if the notice was timely filed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Wilson v. Wood, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded a case back to the district court to determine if a notice of appeal was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule. Keith Wilson, a prisoner, sought to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his habeas petition. The notice of appeal was received shortly after the filing deadline. Because Wilson is incarcerated, his notice of appeal would be considered timely if delivered to prison officials for mailing before the deadline. However, the record did not indicate when Wilson delivered the notice. The appeals court remanded to the district court to obtain this information and determine if the notice was timely filed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-09-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6752

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded a case back to the district court to determine if a notice of appeal was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule. Keith Wilson, a prisoner, sought to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his habeas petition. The notice of appeal was received shortly after the filing deadline. Because Wilson is incarcerated, his notice of appeal would be considered timely if delivered to prison officials for mailing before the deadline. However, the record did not indicate when Wilson delivered the notice. The appeals court remanded to the district court to obtain this information and determine if the notice was timely filed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    14 views2 pages

    Wilson v. Wood, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded a case back to the district court to determine if a notice of appeal was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule. Keith Wilson, a prisoner, sought to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his habeas petition. The notice of appeal was received shortly after the filing deadline. Because Wilson is incarcerated, his notice of appeal would be considered timely if delivered to prison officials for mailing before the deadline. However, the record did not indicate when Wilson delivered the notice. The appeals court remanded to the district court to obtain this information and determine if the notice was timely filed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-6752

    KEITH D. WILSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DON WOOD, Superintendent;
    Corrections,

    THEODIS

    BECK,

    Secretary

    of

    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
    District Judge. (1:06-cv-00408-WO-WWD)

    Submitted:

    September 16, 2008

    Decided:

    September 22, 2008

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Keith D. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,


    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Keith D. Wilson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order

    denying

    his

    second

    Fed.

    R.

    Civ.

    P.

    60(b)

    motion

    for

    reconsideration of the district courts order denying relief on his


    28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    The notice of appeal was

    received in the district court shortly after expiration of the


    appeal period.

    Because Wilson 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 is ambiguous as

    to when Wilson gave 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

    You might also like