US v. Eugene Cooper
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EUGENE COOPER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-01033-CWH-2)
July 21, 2009
September 3, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Eugene Cooper appeals the district court's order
denying his motion for clarification of the denial of a sentence reduction for substantial assistance. record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the
Accordingly, we affirm for See United States v. Feb. the 20, facts 2008). and We legal
the reasons stated by the district court. Cooper, dispense No. 4:00-cr-01033-CWH-2 oral argument (D.S.C. because
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
On our initial remand for a determination of excusable neglect or good cause under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), the district court found no excusable neglect based on its assessment of the merits of the appeal. Such a merits review of its own order is not the purpose of a limited remand under Rule 4(b)(4). However, because the time limits of Rule 4(b) are not jurisdictional, see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, __, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363-66 (2007); United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 683-86 (4th Cir. 2009), and the Government has not moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, we decline to dismiss the appeal as untimely and instead address the merits of the motion for clarification.
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?