US v. Michael Thompson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL J. THOMPSON, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00480-TSE-1)
December 14, 2009
December 29, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Lundberg Medzius, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Michael J. Thompson challenges the district court's
order granting the Government's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion. * We have reviewed we the deny record the and find no reversible to error. dismiss United
Thompson's appeal and affirm the district court's order.
States v. Thompson, No. 1:05-cr-00480-TSE-1 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 5, 2008; entered Dec. 8, 2008). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Thompson did not appeal the district court's order within the requisite ten-day appeal period and the Government moved to dismiss the appeal. Because Thompson asserted that he did not receive notice of the district court's order until after his time to appeal expired, and because Thompson filed his notice of appeal within the thirty-day excusable neglect period, this court remanded the matter to the district court for an excusable neglect determination. On remand, the district court determined that Thompson established excusable neglect for his untimely filing, and the matter has been returned for this court's 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?