George Beckett v. Warden, No. 08-8050 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 20, 2009.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8050 GEORGE BECKETT, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Respondents Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-00873-WDQ) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and March 16, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Beckett, Appellant Pro Se. James Everett Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Beckett seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing petition. untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) In civil actions in which the United States or its officer or thirty days judgment as agency is not after order or the to a party, entry note of an the the parties district appeal, see are accorded court s Fed. R. final App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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). jurisdictional. These time periods are mandatory and Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court s order was entered on the docket on July 25, 2008. Beckett signed his notice of appeal on September 13, 2008, and the notice was filed in the district court on September 19, 2008. Beckett stated in the notice of appeal that he did not receive notice of the district court s dismissal of his § 2254 petition until mid August. requests that he be afforded an appeal. Beckett We liberally construe Beckett s statements as requesting an extension of the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). Bumgarner, 992 F.2d 899, 901 (4th Cir. See Washington v. 1989); Stephenson, 781 F.2d 1036, 1038-39 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 Myers v. So construed, the motion for an extension of time was filed within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. * Because the district court has not ruled on the motion for extension, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling the court to determine whether Beckett has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the thirty-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. REMANDED * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been 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). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
