US v. Lamont Garrison

Filing 920090126

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7532 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAMONT HAROLD GARRISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00132-JCC-13) Submitted: December 24, 2008 Decided: January 26, 2009 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Harold Garrison, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamont Harold Garrison seeks to appeal the district court's order reducing Garrison's sentence pursuant to his motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies). 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 granting the motion for reduction of sentence on June 2, 2008, and the tenday appeal period ordinarily would have expired on June 16, 2008. See Fed. R. App. P. 26 (providing that "intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays" are excluded when time period is less than eleven days). Although Garrison did not file a notice of appeal within this ten-day period, he filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment within this time frame. "[T]he specifically Federal for Rules of Criminal for Procedure do not [or] provide motions reconsideration prescribe the time in which they must be filed." 2 Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir. 1985). However, the Supreme Court has held that a motion for rehearing or reconsideration extends the time for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case if the motion is filed before the order States sought v. to be reconsidered 502 U.S. 1, becomes 4 n.2 final. (1991) See United that Ibarra, (holding would-be appellant who files a timely motion for reconsideration from criminal the judgment appeal is entitled the to full to 429 time period has for been noticing decided); (same); after motion reconsider U.S. 75, 6, United States v. v. Dieter, 376 7-8 (1976) (1964) United States Healy, U.S. 77-79 (same); United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993) (same). The district court entered its order denying Garrison Garrison's motion to alter or amend on July 3, 2008. then had ten days, or until July 18, 2008, to timely file his notice of appeal. Garrison's notice of appeal was filed on July 21, 2008, after the expiration of the appeal period 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 has shown of court for the court to determine cause The whether Garrison an excusable the neglect appeal or good warranting extension ten-day period. 3 record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED 4

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?