US v. Myers
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLINTON DESHANNON MYERS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cr-00096-jct)
August 31, 2007
September 13, 2007
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clinton Deshannon Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Clinton Deshannon Myers seeks to appeal the district court order denying his motions to reopen the time to file a notice of appeal from his criminal judgment and for production of
transcripts. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after "the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed." Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). With
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. P. 4(b)(4); United
States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its order on March 9, 2007. Myers' undated notice of appeal was postmarked on April 11, 2007, after the ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day
excusable neglect period.
Because the notice of appeal was filed
within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Myers has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the tenday 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?