US v. Eugene Cooper

Filing 920090903

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6530

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)

Submitted:

July 21, 2009

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

with

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

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.

2