Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-05-06712/USCOURTS-ca4-05-06712-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theodis Beck
Appellee
Spencer Lamont Stacey
Appellant

Document Text:

Document 1

Document 2

Appeal: 05-6712 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/13/2005 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

 October 13, 2005

 Clerk, US D/Ct

 Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro

 Suite 400

 U. S. Courthouse

 324 West Market Street

 P. O. Box 2708

 Greensboro, NC 27401

 Re: 05-6712 Stacey v. Beck

 CA-04-664-1-WLO

 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/ Michael Radday

 By: ________________________

 Deputy Clerk

 cc: Spencer Lamont Stacey

 Sandra Wallace-Smith

Appeal: 05-6712 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/13/2005 Pg: 2 of 4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6712

SPENCER LAMONT STACEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CA-04-664-1-WLO)

Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: October 13, 2005

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Spencer Lamont Stacey, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Appeal: 05-6712 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/13/2005 Pg: 3 of 4
*This court has given Stacey the benefit of the “prison

mailbox” rule, Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), regarding the

filing date of this document.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Spencer Lamont Stacey seeks to appeal the dismissal of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition entered on March 3, 2005.

Stacey, however, did not file his notice of appeal until April 29,

2005,* which is outside the thirty day appeal period under Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The appeal period is “‘mandatory and

jurisdictional.’” Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,

264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229

(1960)).

We construe Stacey’s pro se notice of appeal, in which he

indicated his intent to appeal and alleged that he did not timely

receive notice of his action being dismissed, as a motion to reopen

the time to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). See

United States v. Feuver, 236 F.3d 725, 729 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for it to

determine whether Stacey satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(6). Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 454 (10th Cir.

1994). The record, as supplemented, then will be returned to this

court for further consideration.

REMANDED

Appeal: 05-6712 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/13/2005 Pg: 4 of 4