United States v. Michael Aaron Little

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “challenges to the execution of a federal sentence are properly brought under § 2241”
• concluding that defendant’s appeal was untimely because Rule 49(c) did not allow a court to extend the period to file an appeal when a party fails to receive notice of an order
• observing that pro se pleadings are classified according to their contents rather than their captions
• observing that pro se pleadings are classified according to their contents rather than their captions
• holding Rule 4(b) is jurisdictional; district court cannot extend time by republishing order so that litigant can file timely appeal, despite lack of notice
• noting that because petitioner was confined in Texas when his petition was filed, the Western District of North Carolina was an improper venue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).