Lawrence Crawford v. Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7096 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7096
LAWRENCE L. CRAWFORD, a/k/a Jonah The Tishbite, a/k/a Gabriel Jahjah T.
Tishbite, a/k/a, John Gabriel Jahjah Tishbite,
Movant - Appellant,
and
RON SANTA MCCRAY,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge; Shiva Vafai Hodges, Magistrate Judge. (1:22-cv-
01204-TLW-SVH)
Submitted: April 20, 2023 Decided: April 24, 2023
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7096 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
Lawrence Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7096 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence L. Crawford seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his
motion to intervene in the underlying habeas action and he has filed a motion to supplement
the appeal. The magistrate judge entered the dismissal order on May 6, 2022. Affording
Crawford the benefit of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988),
the earliest date his notice of appeal may be deemed filed is September 14, 2022, beyond
both the 30-day appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), and the 30-day excusable
neglect period allowed under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). See Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167,
1168-69 (4th Cir. 1983).
However, because Crawford’s notice of appeal suggests that Crawford did not
timely receive notice of the denial of his motion to intervene, we construe the notice of
appeal as a motion to reopen the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), compare
United States v. Feuver, 236 F.3d 725, 729 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2001), and remand this case
to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Crawford can satisfy
the requirements for reopening set forth in Rule 4(a)(6). ∗ The record, as supplemented,
will then be returned to this court for further consideration. We defer action on Crawford’s
motion to supplement.
REMANDED
∗
We express no opinion as to whether Crawford is entitled to a reopening of the
appeal period and leave that determination to the district court in the first instance.
3