UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7798

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL IRVIN WHITE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00002-CMH-1; 1:08-cv-01058-CMH)

Submitted: March 22, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Irvin White, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Bibighaus 

Hammerstrom, David Benjamin Joyce, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel White appeals the district court’s denial of 

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from a final 

judgment. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the order and 

remand to the district court for further consideration. 

White was convicted by a jury in 2006 of one count of 

conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) (2006), one count of 

distribution of cocaine base in violation of § 841(a)(1), one 

count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in 

violation of § 841(a)(1), one count of possession of a firearm 

in furtherance of drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2006), one count of possession of a firearm with 

an obliterated serial number in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k)

(2006), and one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition 

after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006). He was sentenced to 435 months 

in prison. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence. 

See United States v. White, No. 06-5058 (4th Cir. July 10, 2007) 

(unpublished). 

In early October 2008, White contacted “Federal Post 

Conviction Litigation” (FPCL), an organization based in 

California, holding itself out to be a law firm specializing in 

post-conviction litigation in federal district and appellate 
3

courts. White hired one Eric Von Logan, purportedly an attorney 

with the FPCL, to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate 

his conviction and sentence. The motion, filed on October 8, 

2008, was denied by the district court on October 15, 2008, on 

the ground that Logan was not admitted to practice before the 

Eastern District of Virginia. 

In November 2008, Logan sent White a letter explaining 

the basis for the district court’s dismissal. That letter 

represented to White that the district court had dismissed his 

motion on the ground that it was time barred by the limitations 

period contained in the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), rather than on the basis of 

Logan’s failure to follow the district court’s local rules 

governing attorney appearances. Attached to that letter was a 

document, styled as an order from the district court. That 

“order,” also dated October 15, explained that the court was 

dismissing the motion as untimely under the AEDPA. No such 

order appears on the district court’s docket. The “order” also 

bore a signature purporting to be that of presiding District 

Judge Claude M. Hilton. 

White filed a pro se motion in the district court for 

relief from a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In 

that motion, he claimed that the court erred in finding his 

§ 2255 motion time-barred. The district court, unaware that 
4

White apparently had been misled as to the basis of the 

dismissal of his § 2255 motion, denied the motion for relief. 

White timely appealed to this court. 

Comparing the order filed by the district court with 

the order White has tendered to this court, we are left with the 

impression that Logan altered an order of the district court in 

order to misrepresent to White the basis for the disposition of 

his § 2255 motion. In addition, we are concerned that Logan may 

have misrepresented his credentials and may not be a licensed 

attorney in any jurisdiction. Because these new facts have come 

to light since the district court decided White’s Rule 60(b) 

motion, however, we consider it appropriate to accord the 

district court the plenary opportunity to make factual findings 

and reconsider White’s motion for relief from the judgment in 

light of those findings. 

We therefore grant a certificate of appealability, 

vacate the district court’s denial of White’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion, and remand this matter to the district court for 

further consideration of that motion. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED