22-0004·CAPITAL CASE

Steven Bixby v. Bryan Stirling

Vacated & Remanded

Status

Scheduled
Argued
Opinion Issued (current)

Question Presented

Whether district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Rule 60(b)(6) motion, whether motion constituted a successive habeas petition.

Argument Date

September 22, 2023

Argument Time

8:30 a.m.

Panel

Courtroom

Butzner Courtroom (Room 201)

Lower Court Judge

Hendricks

Panel

Chief Judge Diaz

Judge Agee

Judge Harris

Citation

CaseSteven Bixby v. Bryan Stirling, No. 22-0004 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023)

PanelDiaz, C.J., Agee & Harris, JJ.

Arguing Counsel

David Weiss

per CA4 audio archive

William Maye

per CA4 audio archive

Panel That Day

4 of 4 cases argued September 22, 2023 before this panel have been decided.

Decided

21-1960

Bikachi Amisi v. Lakeyta Brooks

Opinion Issued

Authored by Chief Judge Diaz

21-4563

United States v. Claudio Rodriguez

Opinion Issued

Authored by Per Curiam

22-0004· This case

Steven Bixby v. Bryan Stirling

Opinion Issued

Authored by Judge Agee

22-4072

United States v. Jorge Sanchez-Garcia

Opinion Issued

Opinions

Majority
by Agee
November 27, 2023
Read opinion ↗
Majority
January 5, 2024
Read opinion ↗

Disposition

Court: Vacated and remanded with instructions
Normalized: Vacated & Remanded

November 27, 2023