Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Koon v. Condon, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    1) Robert Holland Koon seeks to appeal a district court order denying relief on his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2) Koon's notice of appeal was received approximately eight days after the expiration of the appeal period. 3) Under the prison mailbox rule, a notice of appeal is considered filed on the date it is delivered by the prisoner to prison officials for mailing. However, the record does not indicate when Koon delivered the notice of appeal. 4) The case is remanded to the district court to determine when Koon delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials and whether the filing was timely under the prison mailbox rule.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-12-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6803

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Robert Holland Koon seeks to appeal a district court order denying relief on his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2) Koon's notice of appeal was received approximately eight days after the expiration of the appeal period. 3) Under the prison mailbox rule, a notice of appeal is considered filed on the date it is delivered by the prisoner to prison officials for mailing. However, the record does not indicate when Koon delivered the notice of appeal. 4) The case is remanded to the district court to determine when Koon delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials and whether the filing was timely under the prison mailbox rule.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Koon v. Condon, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Robert Holland Koon seeks to appeal a district court order denying relief on his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2) Koon's notice of appeal was received approximately eight days after the expiration of the appeal period. 3) Under the prison mailbox rule, a notice of appeal is considered filed on the date it is delivered by the prisoner to prison officials for mailing. However, the record does not indicate when Koon delivered the notice of appeal. 4) The case is remanded to the district court to determine when Koon delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials and whether the filing was timely under the prison mailbox rule.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-6803

    ROBERT HOLLAND KOON,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    CHARLES M. CONDON, South Carolina Attorney
    General,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    C. Weston Houck, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-01-3101-9-12)

    Submitted:

    November 3, 2004

    Decided:

    December 1, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert Holland Koon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
    Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Holland Koon seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
    (2000). The notice of appeal was received approximately eight days
    after the expiration of the appeal period.

    Under Fed. R. App. P.

    4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the notice is
    considered filed as of the date Koon properly delivered it to
    prison officials for mailing to the court.

    The record does not

    reveal if or when Koon complied with the requirements of Fed. R.


    App. P. 4(c)(1).

    Accordingly, we remand the case for the district

    court to obtain this information from the parties and to determine


    whether the filing was timely 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 -

    You might also like