US v. Travis Lamont Foote, No. 16-6305 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 1, 2017.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6305 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TRAVIS LAMONT FOOTE, a/k/a Cash, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00015-JKB-1; 1:15-cv-03168-JKB) Submitted: August 31, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: KEENAN, December 2, 2016 Circuit Judge, and Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Lamont Foote, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Travis Lamont Foote seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Parties to a civil action in which the United States or its officer or agency is a party are accorded 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). However, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves for an extension of the appeal period within 30 days after the expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); see Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989). appeal in a civil “[T]he timely filing of a notice of case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s final docket on December 24, 2015. judgment was entered on the Foote’s notice of appeal was filed on February 24, 2016, * after the expiration of the 60-day appeal period but within the excusable neglect period. During the excusable neglect period and concurrently with the filing of his notice of appeal in the district court, Foote separately filed in this court a motion for extension of time to file a motion * See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 for a certificate of appealability (“motion for extension”). The motion for extension contains language that we liberally construe as a Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) motion for an extension of time to file an appeal. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Foote has warranting demonstrated an extension excusable of the neglect 60-day or appeal good period. cause 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.
