US v. Ronald Jennings

Filing 920090108

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7577

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD A. JENNINGS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00400-RLW-1)

Submitted:

December 17, 2008

Decided:

January 8, 2009

Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge.

TRAXLER,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald A. Jennings, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ronald A. Jennings seeks to appeal the district

court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). In criminal cases, the

defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of the order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P.

4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day 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 denying the

motion for reduction of sentence on July 11, 2008.

Jennings

filed the notice of appeal, at the earliest, on July 29, 2008, after the ten-day neglect period period. 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 limited purpose of allowing the court to determine whether Jennings has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period.

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

2

The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED

3