The decision of the Fourth Circuit presents an important question that warrants this Court's review. In this case, the record establishes the pro se litigant, filed a timely motion for reconsideration through the U.S. Postal Service priority mail requiring a signature from the Clerk of Court's office. It was not controverted that the Clerk of Court received Petitioner's motion two days before the due date. Yet, the Clerk inadvertently gave the motion to the District Judge who failed to send the timely motion to be docketed.

The other question concerns an issue of circuit spits relating to sentencing. Must relative conduct be illegal conduct and may district courts find relevant conduct that has a wag-the-dog effect on the guidelines calculation by using a mere preponderance-of-evidence standard, or must the court instead apply a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.

Whether a pro se litigant's timely motion for reconsideration can be deemed untimely due to a clerk's administrative error when the motion was received before the deadline