US v. Lowry
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHANE MACK LOWRY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (1:02-cr-00003; 1:04-cv-00463)
October 5, 2007
November 8, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shane Mack Lowry, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, John Lanier File, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Shane Mack Lowry seeks to appeal the district court's order of May 1, 2006, accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000) motion. Following the district court's order, Lowry filed a motion for a certificate of appealability on June 6, 2006. Ten months
later, the district court construed Lowry's motion as a notice of appeal. Lowry failed to file his motion within the ten-day period However, with
in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A).
or without a motion, upon 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. 4(b)(4); United Lowry filed period.
States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). his motion within the thirty-day excusable
Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Lowry has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The
record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
- 2 -
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?