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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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)
June 8, 2010
June 22, 2010
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 In to appeal the of district sentence court's under 18
U.S.C. § 3582
December 1, 2009, 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 Rule 4(b)(1)(A) 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 The
motion for reduction of sentence on September 23, 2008. notice of appeal was filed on October 14, 2008.
We remanded to
the district court to determine if Pierce made a showing of good cause or excusable neglect to warrant an extension of the appeal period. warranted. appeal or The district court held that an extension was not
Because Pierce failed to file a timely notice of to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. facts and legal
We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the
decisional process. DISMISSED
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?