United States of America v. Travis Lamont Foote, a/k/a Cash

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6305
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS LAMONT FOOTE, a/k/a Cash,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:14-cr-00015-JKB-1; 1:15-cv-03168-JKB)
Submitted: August 31, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis Lamont Foote, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Travis Lamont Foote seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
Parties to a civil action in which the United States or its
officer or agency is a party are accorded 60 days after the
entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an
appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). However, the district
court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party
moves for an extension of the appeal period within 30 days after
the expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates
excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(5); see Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899,
900-01 (4th Cir. 1989). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of
appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s final judgment was entered on the
docket on December 24, 2015. Foote’s notice of appeal was filed
on February 24, 2016,* after the expiration of the 60-day appeal
period but within the excusable neglect period. During the
excusable neglect period and concurrently with the filing of his
notice of appeal in the district court, Foote separately filed
in this court a motion for extension of time to file a motion
* See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
for a certificate of appealability (“motion for extension”).
The motion for extension contains language that we liberally
construe as a Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) motion for an extension of
time to file an appeal. Accordingly, we remand this case to the
district court for the limited purpose of determining whether
Foote has demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause
warranting an extension of the 60-day appeal period. The
record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for
further consideration.
REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --