Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Thurman Brown, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded a case back to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Thurman Dominick Brown sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. However, Brown filed his notice of appeal after the 60-day deadline. The appellate court construed Brown's notice as a request for an extension due to excusable neglect or good cause. The district court must now determine if Brown has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of time to appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-09-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7040

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded a case back to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Thurman Dominick Brown sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. However, Brown filed his notice of appeal after the 60-day deadline. The appellate court construed Brown's notice as a request for an extension due to excusable neglect or good cause. The district court must now determine if Brown has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of time to appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views3 pages

    United States v. Thurman Brown, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded a case back to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Thurman Dominick Brown sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. However, Brown filed his notice of appeal after the 60-day deadline. The appellate court construed Brown's notice as a request for an extension due to excusable neglect or good cause. The district court must now determine if Brown has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of time to appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7040

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    THURMAN DOMINICK BROWN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (1:07-cr-00479-WMN-1; 1:11-cv-03010-WMN)

    Submitted:

    September 11, 2012

    Decided: September 14, 2012

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thurman Dominick Brown, Appellant Pro Se.


    Michael Clayton
    Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Rachel Miller Yasser,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Thurman Dominick Brown seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    Supp.

    2012)

    motion.

    Pursuant

    to

    Federal

    Rule

    of

    Appellate

    Procedure 4(a)(1)(B), a notice of appeal in a civil case in


    which

    the

    district

    United
    court

    States

    within

    is

    sixty

    party

    days

    must

    after

    be

    filed

    judgment

    is

    with

    the

    entered.

    [T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a


    Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

    jurisdictional requirement.
    214 (2007).

    The district court may extend the filing time if a

    party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed


    by

    Rule

    4(a)

    neglect or good cause.


    The

    district

    March 27, 2012.

    expires

    and

    the

    party

    shows

    excusable

    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A).


    court

    denied

    Browns

    2255

    motion

    on

    Therefore, Brown had until May 29, 2012, * to

    file a notice of appeal.

    Brown, however, filed his undated

    notice of appeal, at the earliest, on June 12, 2012, fourteen


    days after the expiration of the sixty-day appeal period.
    liberally

    construe

    Browns

    notice

    of

    appeal,

    which

    he

    We

    filed

    within the thirty-day excusable neglect period, as a request for


    an extension of the appeal period.

    Accordingly, we remand this

    The sixtieth day fell on Saturday, May 26, and Monday, May
    28, was Memorial Day. See Fed. R. App. 26(a).

    case to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling


    the court to determine whether Brown has shown excusable neglect
    or good cause warranting an extension of time to appeal.

    The

    record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for


    further consideration.
    REMANDED

    You might also like