US v. Quentin Hayes, No. 14-6086 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 2, 2014.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6086 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. QUENTIN DAWAN HAYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00941-RBH-2; 4:13-cv-02832-RBH) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Circuit Judges. Judge, Decided: and HAMILTON and April 1, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quentin Dawan Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Quentin Dawan Hayes seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2012) motion. Parties in a civil action in which the United States or an officer accorded or agency sixty of days the after federal the government entry of the final judgment or order to note an appeal. 4(a)(1)(B). Browder v. is a party district are court s Fed. R. App. P. This time period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 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. ). Because Hayes is incarcerated, the notice of appeal is considered filed on the date it was 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). The record does not conclusively reveal when Hayes delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information from the parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED 2

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.