Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • James Earl Parrish v. David A. Williams, Warden, 948 F.2d 1282, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    22 views2 pages
    The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by James Earl Parrish of a district court decision. The court initially dismissed the appeal as untimely. However, Parrish asserted that he had filed a timely motion for an extension of time with the district court. The state conceded receiving notice of such a motion. Although the district court has no record of the motion, other evidence indicates it was likely filed on time. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated its previous dismissal, granted rehearing, and remanded the case to the district court to consider the extension request.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1991-11-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 948 F.2d 1282 Docket: 91-7603

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by James Earl Parrish of a district court decision. The court initially dismissed the appeal as untimely. However, Parrish asserted that he had filed a timely motion for an extension of time with the district court. The state conceded receiving notice of such a motion. Although the district court has no record of the motion, other evidence indicates it was likely filed on time. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated its previous dismissal, granted rehearing, and remanded the case to the district court to consider the extension request.

    Copyright:

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

    James Earl Parrish v. David A. Williams, Warden, 948 F.2d 1282, 4th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal filed by James Earl Parrish of a district court decision. The court initially dismissed the appeal as untimely. However, Parrish asserted that he had filed a timely motion for an extension of time with the district court. The state conceded receiving notice of such a motion. Although the district court has no record of the motion, other evidence indicates it was likely filed on time. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated its previous dismissal, granted rehearing, and remanded the case to the district court to consider the extension request.

    Copyright:

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

    948 F.

    2d 1282

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    James Earl PARRISH, Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    David A. WILLIAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 91-7603.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted July 12, 1991.
    Decided October 25, 1991.
    As Amended Nov. 4, 1991.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
    Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CA-90-709-R)
    James Earl Parrish, appellant pro se.
    Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for
    appellee.
    W.D.Va.
    REMANDED.
    Before WIDENER, K.K. HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    James Earl Parrish noted an appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period
    established by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). Because the district court docket failed to
    reveal that a motion for extension of time had been filed within the additional

    thirty-day period provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5), this Court denied a


    certificate of probable cause and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction
    on August 8, 1991. Parrish then filed a motion for rehearing asserting that a
    timely motion for extension of time had been filed with the district court. In its
    answer, the state conceded that it received notice of such a motion and other
    evidence indicated that Parrish gave prison authorities a legal document on the
    date that the motion for extension of time was supposedly filed.
    2

    The district court has no record of Parrish's motion for an extension of time, but
    all other facts point to the timely filing of such a motion. We therefore vacate
    our opinion of August 8, 1991, grant the motion for rehearing, and remand this
    case to the district court for consideration of the extension request. 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.

    REMANDED.

    You might also like