US v. Curtis Davis
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS D. DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:99-cr-00055-JBF-1)
February 19, 2009
February 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis D. Davis, Appellant Special Assistant United Virginia, for Appellee.
Pro Se. Timothy States Attorney,
Richard Murphy, Newport News,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Curtis D. Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion and for its reduction of sentence order under 18 his
U.S.C. § 3582
motion for reconsideration.
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 October 8, 2008. of appeal was filed on November 24, 2008. 1
Because Davis failed
to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of the district court's order denying Davis' § 3582 motion. 2 Turning to the order denying Davis' motion for
reconsideration, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. According, we affirm for the reasons stated by the United States v. Davis, No. 4:99-cr-00055-JBF-1 We dispense with oral argument
district court. (E.D. Va.
Nov. 18, 2008).
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART
Davis' motion for reconsideration was filed on November 10, 2008, more than ten days after the district court entered its order denying his § 3582 motion, and therefore did not toll the running of the time to file a notice of appeal. United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993).
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?