Background
Benjamin Arellano Felix, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the execution of his sentence. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the warden and denied Felix relief.
Felix appealed. He also sought to challenge the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion, but he did not file an amended notice of appeal covering that postjudgment order.
The Court’s Holding
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. After reviewing the record, the panel found no reversible error in the grant of summary judgment to the respondent.
The court did not consider the order denying Felix’s Rule 59(e) motion because he failed to file an amended notice of appeal from that order as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). The panel decided the appeal without oral argument because the submitted materials adequately presented the facts and legal issues.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit upheld the denial of Felix’s § 2241 challenge to the execution of his federal sentence.
- The panel found no reversible error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the warden.
- A party seeking review of a postjudgment order entered after a notice of appeal must file an amended notice of appeal covering that order.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves intact the district court’s rejection of Felix’s sentence-execution challenge but, as an unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion, is not binding precedent in the circuit.
It also highlights an appellate-preservation requirement: a notice of appeal that does not encompass a later order may need to be amended before the appellate court can review that order.