US v. Cephus Pierce

Filing 920100622

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8254

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)

Submitted:

June 8, 2010

Decided:

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

his

motion

reduction criminal

U.S.C. § 3582

(2006).

cases

decided

before

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

contentions

2

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process. DISMISSED

3