US v. Gary Tidd, No. 13-7000 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 29, 2014.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7000 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARY LEE TIDD, Defendant - Appellant.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 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit October 23, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 limited remand jurisdiction for turns on resolution of the question, we the ambiguity. direct Bowles a 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. 4(a)(1)(B). Fed. R. App. P. 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, timely, period. meritorious We it motion therefore is unclear to whether extend to remand or district the Tidd reopen filed the court a appeal 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
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.
