US v. Stewart
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY WILLIAM STEWART, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00011-2)
January 28, 2010
February 16, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry William Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Magee Tompkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Terry William Stewart seeks to appeal the district
court's orders (1) denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court's previous order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of his criminal judgment; and (2) denying his motion for adjustment of In
restitution payments pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3572 (2000).
criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, Fed. R. App. P. a showing of
excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). neglect This court reviews for an a district of court's
United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered judgments on March 6, 2007, and March 13, 2007. Stewart filed his notices of appeal at the
earliest on March 23, 2007, and April 6, 2007, respectively-within the thirty-day period after expiration of the ten-day appeal period. We remanded the case three times to the district
court for the limited purpose of determining whether Stewart had shown excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. 2 In its last order, the
district court, after explicitly considering Stewart's proffered reasons for the delay as directed by this court, determined that an extension of the appeal period was not warranted with respect to either appealed order. We conclude that the district court See
did not abuse its discretion in making this determination. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs.,
507 U.S. 380, 395
(1993) (providing standard for excusable neglect determination). Because appeal filed. time to periods, the district court of declined appeal to were extend not the
Accordingly, we grant Stewart's motion for extension of file a response to the district court's order and
dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before
We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
contentions the court
decisional process. DISMISSED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?