United States v. Larry Hill, Jr.
706 F. App'x 120
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Larry D. Hill, Jr., a federal inmate, appealed the district court’s order authorizing the Government to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account to satisfy a court-ordered restitution obligation under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n).
- The district court granted the Government’s motion to release funds and denied Hill’s motion for reconsideration in an order dated May 24, 2017.
- The district court also dismissed Hill’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d) filing as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the same May 24 order.
- Hill’s notice of appeal designated only the court’s decision to release inmate-trust funds; he later filed a motion in this court to amend his notice of appeal to challenge the Rule 60(d) dismissal but filed it after the 60-day appeal period elapsed.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record, affirmed the release-of-funds decision and denial of reconsideration, but dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Hill’s appeal of the Rule 60(d) dismissal because the notice of appeal was untimely for that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly authorized release of inmate-trust funds to satisfy restitution | Hill opposed release of funds (claimed error) | Government sought release under § 3664(n) to satisfy restitution | Affirmed — no reversible error in authorizing release of funds |
| Whether district court erred in denying Hill’s motion for reconsideration | Hill sought reconsideration of the fund-release order | Government opposed reconsideration | Affirmed — denial of reconsideration upheld |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed Hill’s Rule 60(d) filing as an unauthorized successive § 2255 | Hill argued Rule 60(d) relief was appropriate (not a successive § 2255) | Government treated filing as successive § 2255 and urged dismissal | Appeal of dismissal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction due to notice-of-appeal limitations |
| Whether this court had jurisdiction to review the Rule 60(d) dismissal given Hill’s late motion to amend his notice of appeal | Hill moved to amend notice of appeal in this court, arguing functional equivalence to a timely notice | Government argued appeal period expired and no extension was obtained | Dismissed — amendment filed after the 60-day period; no extension; timely notice is jurisdictional |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (informal filings may serve as functional equivalent of a notice of appeal)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is jurisdictional)
- Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2014) (requirements for a notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 3)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prison mailbox rule for filing dates)
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.