UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CORNELIUS DANIELS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00057-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00532-BR)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Cornelius Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Cornelius Daniels seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2012) motion. In a civil case in which the United States
or its officer or agency is a party, parties have sixty days
following the entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(B). The district court may, however, extend the time
for filing a notice of appeal if a party so moves within thirty
days after expiration of the original appeal period and
demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause for the extension.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i)-(ii); Washington v. Baumgarner,
882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989).
The district court dismissed Daniels’ § 2255 motion on
October 16, 2012. Thus, Daniels had until Monday, December 17,
2012, to file a notice of appeal. * Daniels filed his notice of
appeal on Tuesday, December 18, 2012, one day beyond the
expiration of the appeal period but within the thirty-day
excusable neglect period. We construe as a timely request for
*
The sixtieth day fell on Saturday, December 15, 2012.
Thus, Daniels was required to file his notice of appeal no later
than the following Monday. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C).
2
an extension of time the letter accompanying Daniels’ notice of
appeal.
Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court
for the limited purpose of determining whether Daniels has
demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an
extension of the appeal period. The record, as supplemented,
will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
3