US v. Cephus Pierce
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEPHUS PIERCE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH-24)
February 19, 2009
February 26, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cephus Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Cephus order denying Pierce seeks for to appeal the of district sentence court's under 18
U.S.C. § 3582 (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 applies). is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period
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 September 23, 2008. filed the notice of appeal but on October the 15, 2008,
Because the notice of appeal was filed within
the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Pierce has shown
excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the
ten-day appeal period.
The record, as supplemented, will then
be returned to this court for further consideration.
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?