No. 23-5972

Barney A. Dunlap v. David Mitchell, Superintendent, Lanesboro Correctional Institution

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-11-07
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: civil-procedure collateral-estoppel due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-of-counsel jurisdictional-statement notice-of-appeal pro-se pro-se-appellant procedural-default
Latest Conference: 2024-01-05
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Since the U.S, District Court has Subsequently Confirmed that, the Not/ce .
oF Appeal in question was, im fact, timely Filed, Should the Court
of Appeals Fourth Cireult's DISPOSITION on the notice of appeal

issue be Vacated ?°

2% Should a pre se appeHant be not) fied by district court that , fe
appellant's motion , brief , or petition Aas been reclassified fo a
notice of appeal 7 .

3 Whether the Court of Appeals Should notity a pro se appellant that
thelr motion, brief, or petipion must address the court's expected
Subsect matter of a reclass/fied document prior to Filing 4
DISPOSITION ?

4 Does collateral estoppel Classify as an impediment that prevents
Filing, /n the Context of § 2244 (d)(Il28) ?

5 When Coflateral estoppel via procedural default cloctrine 1s enforced.
cdluring direet appeal /n a criminal Case, Should /? preclude 4
pro se, indigent appellant From Mtg ating an (nekbeetive 0551's tane
of Counsel Claim on appellate Counsel ?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Court of Appeals' disposition on the notice of appeal issue should be vacated

Docket Entries

2024-01-08
Petition DENIED.
2023-12-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-07-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 7, 2023)

Attorneys

Barney A. Dunlap
Barney Adrian Dunlap — Petitioner