Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06867/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06867-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6867

MARIO RAMOS HINOJOS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

NFN BUSH, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:14-cv-02960-DCN)

Submitted: September 15, 2015 Decided: December 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Ramos Hinojos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John 

Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6867 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Mario Ramos Hinojos, Jr., a South Carolina inmate, seeks to 

appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Hinojos’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 petition. In a federal habeas proceeding brought by a 

state prisoner against state prison officials, parties have 

thirty days following the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, if a party moves for an extension 

of time to appeal within 30 days after expiration of the 

original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or 

good cause, a district court may extend the time to file a 

notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Washington v. 

Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900–01 (4th Cir. 1989).

The district court’s final judgment was entered on April 

10, 2015. Hinojos filed his notice of appeal on May 16, 2015,∗

after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period but within the 

excusable neglect period. Hinojos’s notice of appeal contained 

language that can fairly be construed as a request for an 

extension of time to appeal. Accordingly, we remand this case 

 ∗ See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding 

that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is filed when the 

prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the 

court clerk).

Appeal: 15-6867 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

to the district court for the limited purpose of determining 

whether Hinojos has demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause 

warranting an extension of the 30-day appeal period. The 

record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for 

further consideration.

REMANDED

Appeal: 15-6867 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/03/2015 Pg: 3 of 3