Court Opinion

ID: 1004530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:42:32.205041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:33.468669
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GORDON R. SCHENKELBERGER,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.                                                             No. 00-7763

RONALD ANGELONE,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.
(CA-00-963-AM)

Submitted: April 27, 2001

Decided: May 29, 2001

Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gordon R. Schenkelberger, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Gordon R. Schenkelberger appeals the district court's order deny-
ing relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider for lack
of jurisdiction. We vacate the district court's order and remand for
consideration of the motion on the merits.

After the district court dismissed Schenkelberger's 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition for failure to exhaust his
underlying claim in state court, Schenkelberger timely noted an
appeal (No. 00-7202). Subsequently, he filed a Rule 60(b) motion,
seeking reconsideration of the disposition of the§ 2254 petition.
Believing that the notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction to con-
sider the Rule 60(b) motion, the district court denied the motion.
However, this court has declared that "when a Rule 60(b) motion is
filed while a judgment is on appeal, the district court has jurisdiction
to entertain the motion, and should do so promptly." Fobian v. Stor-
age Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court dismissing
the Rule 60(b) motion and remand for consideration of the motion on
the merits. See id. at 892. In so doing, we express no opinion on the
merits of the motion. See id. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                  2