Court Opinion

ID: 9837995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:12.804077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.773200
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6139      Doc: 12         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6139

        DWAYNE ANTHONY HAIRSTON, a/k/a Dwyne Hairston,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        MR. PRUTTING, Warden,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:21-cv-00441-EKD-JCH)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dwayne Anthony Hairston, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6139       Doc: 12          Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dwayne Anthony Hairston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

        on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the

        district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless

        the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the

        appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

               Here, the district court entered its opinion and order dismissing Hairston’s petition

        on December 6, 2022. Hairston filed the notice of appeal on February 13, 2023, outside of

        the appeal period. However, based on the document Hairston attached to his notice of

        appeal, it appears that he had previously sent a letter to the district court regarding an appeal

        to this court. Hairston’s letter is not in the record and, therefore, the record does not

        indicate whether Hairston timely appealed the district court’s order, or whether Hairston

        sought to extend or reopen the appeal period. We therefore remand this case for the limited

        purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether Hairston filed a timely notice

        of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned

        to this court for further consideration.

                                                                                          REMANDED

                                                       2