Case ID: f-appx_232/html/0353-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald E. WALKER, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-7848.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2007.
    Decided: July 10, 2007.
    Ronald E. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Lou Haines, Office of the United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia; Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Samuel David Marsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Ronald E. Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The notice of appeal was received in the district court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Because Walker is incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. RApp. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). The record does not reveal when Walker gave 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.