UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY LEE TIDD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:10-cr-00043-F-1; 7:12-cv-00106-F)
Submitted: October 18, 2013 Decided: October 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Lee Tidd, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Lee Tidd seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion. However, it is unclear whether Tidd’s appeal is timely.
Because our jurisdiction turns on the question, we direct a
limited remand for resolution of the ambiguity. Bowles v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a
notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.”).
Following the denial of his § 2255 motion on April 26,
2012, Tidd had sixty days to notice an appeal. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(B). Tidd does not claim to have done so but, instead,
alleges that he did not receive notice of the denial until July
17, 2012, at which time he placed in the prison mail system a
notice of appeal and a request to extend or reopen the appeal
period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)-(6). The notice of appeal that
Tidd filed with this court in June 2013 includes a purported
copy of this July 17, 2012 filing, but the district court shows
no record of this document. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988).
Accordingly, it is unclear whether Tidd filed a
timely, meritorious motion to extend or reopen the appeal
period. We therefore remand to the district court for a
determination of whether Tidd filed a timely Fed. R. App. P.
2
4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6) motion and, if so, whether that motion should
be granted. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned
to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
3