Court Opinion

ID: 9840306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 21:00:31.458465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.730298
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7410      Doc: 16         Filed: 09/14/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7410

        JESSE ALMENDAREZ,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES; ROBERT J. DODSON; ROBERT J. HIGDON, JR.,

                             Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-hc-02130-M-RJ)

        Submitted: August 10, 2023                                  Decided: September 14, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jesse Almendarez, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7410      Doc: 16        Filed: 09/14/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                Jesse Almendarez seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without

        prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court received the notice of appeal

        after the expiration of the appeal period. Because Almendarez is institutionalized, the

        notice of appeal is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison

        officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

        (1988). The record does not conclusively establish when Almendarez deposited the notice

        of appeal in the institution’s internal mail system. Accordingly, we remand the case for

        the limited purpose of allowing the district court to make this finding and to determine

        whether Almendarez timely noted an appeal 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

                                                    2