UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6957
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEROY ANTHONY THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-111-HNM; CA-03-416-L)
Submitted: October 17, 2003 Decided: September 15, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leroy Anthony Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, James
Clarke Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Anthony Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion for lack of
jurisdiction. In civil actions in which the United States is a
party, parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the
district court’s final judgment or order to file a notice of
appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court
extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens
the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal
period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Panhorst v. United
States, 241 F.3d 367, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Browder v.
Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)).
The district court’s order dismissing Thomas’ motion was
entered on March 7, 2003. Thomas filed his notice of appeal in
this court on June 2, 2003. In it, Thomas stated that the district
court did not send him its order disposing of his motion until May
14, 2003. We liberally construe Thomas’ notice of appeal as a
motion to extend the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). We remand this
case for the district court to determine whether Thomas has shown
excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The record, as supplemented, will then be
returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
- 2 -