Does the presumption of timeliness under Houston v. Lack apply when the petitioner proves timely mailing but the district court did not receive the notice of appeal?

QUESTION PRESENTED I. DOES THE PRESUMPTION OF TIMELINESS TO BE ACCORDED THE PETITIONER'S PRO SE NOTICE OF APPEAL UNDER THE "MAIL BOX" RULE OF HOUSTON v. LACK, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) APPLY WHEN THE PETITIONER IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT HE TIMELY MAILED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE — BUT IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY ALONE? iS PROOF OF THE TIMELY MAILING CONTROLLING OR IS THE DISTRICT COURT'S FAILURE TO HAVE RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL CONTROLLING? . -i co