US v. Henry Zelaya, No. 13-7812 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 4, 2014.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY ZELAYA, a/k/a Homeboy, a/k/a Jose Manuel Alvarado, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:05-cr-00393-DKC-19; 8:10-cv-02509-DKC) Submitted: April 1, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Zelaya, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Jean Gwinn, John Alexander Romano, Michael Stephen Warbel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; William Moomau, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, James Marton Trusty, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Marianne Shelvey, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Zelaya seeks to appeal the district order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. court's In civil cases in which the United States or its officer or agency is a party, parties have sixty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). A district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal upon a party s motion for an extension filed within thirty days after the expiration of the original appeal period and a showing of excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900 01 (4th Cir. 1989). Zelaya s 22, 2013. sixty-day appeal period expired on October Zelaya s notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on October 28, 2013, outside the sixty-day appeal period but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because Zelaya indicated that he just learned of the disposition of his § 2255 motion and sought a copy of the district court s order, we construe Zelaya s notice of appeal as a Rule 4(a)(5) motion for extension of time. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the limited demonstrated purpose excusable of determining neglect or 2 good whether cause Zelaya warranting has an extension of the appeal period. 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.
