US v. Timmy McAlpin

Filing 920090511

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5143 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMMY LEE MCALPIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00008-RLV-CH-3) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: May 11, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ketanji Brown Jackson, MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timmy Lee McAlpin seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice Fed. R. of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). 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 2008. after district court entered judgment on October 17, McAlpin filed the notice of appeal on November 13, 2008, the ten-day neglect period window. expired Because but the within notice the of thirty-day appeal was excusable filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether McAlpin has shown excusable of the neglect or good cause warranting The record, an as extension ten-day appeal period. supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. We defer acting on the Government's motion to dismiss this appeal until the record is returned to this court. REMANDED 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?