US v. Spencer Webb, No. 14-7321 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 16, 2015.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7321 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SPENCER Cooper, TYRONE WEBB, a/k/a Stanley Cooper, a/k/a Corey Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00014-RBS-DEM-1) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, December 19, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Spencer Tyrone Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Spencer Tyrone Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Parties in a civil action in which the United States or an officer or agency of the federal government is a party are accorded sixty days after the entry of the final judgment or order to note an appeal. 4(a)(1)(B). district court’s Fed. R. App. P. “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Because Webb 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, 276 (1988). The record does not conclusively reveal when Webb 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.
