Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-05-07103/USCOURTS-ca4-05-07103-0/pdf.json

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

---

Document 1

Document 2

Appeal: 05-7103 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/15/2005 Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex

1100 E. Main Street, Suite 501

Richmond, Virginia 23219-3517

Patricia S. Connor

Clerk

www.ca4.uscourts.gov Telephone

(804) 916-2700

 December 15, 2005

 Elizabeth H. Paret

 Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria

 401 Courthouse Square

 Alexandria, VA 22314

 Re: 05-7103 Ripley v. Robinson

 CA-04-280-1-GBL

 Dear Clerk:

 Enclosed is an opinion of this Court remanding the case for

 limited purpose. The record on appeal is being returned for the

 district court's use. Please return the record, as supplemented,

 to this Court after completing the determination on remand.

 Yours truly,

 PATRICIA S. CONNOR

 Clerk

 /s/ Shirley J. Beasley

 By: ________________________

 Deputy Clerk

 cc: Vernon Ripley

 Amy L. Marshall

Appeal: 05-7103 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/15/2005 Pg: 2 of 4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7103

VERNON RIPLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID ROBINSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-04-280-1-GBL)

Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 15, 2005

Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon Ripley, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Appeal: 05-7103 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/15/2005 Pg: 3 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vernon Ripley seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and

60(b). The notice of appeal was received in the district court

shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Under Fed. R. App.

P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the notice is

considered filed as of the date Ripley properly delivered it to

prison officials for mailing to the court. The record does not

reveal if or when Ripley complied with the requirements of Fed. R.

App. P. 4(c)(1). Accordingly, we remand the case for 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

Appeal: 05-7103 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/15/2005 Pg: 4 of 4