US v. Cedrick Snipes

Filing 920091026

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6526

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEDRICK L. SNIPES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00718-PMD-1)

Submitted:

October 20, 2009

Decided:

October 26, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

NIEMEYER,

Circuit

Judge,

and

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedrick L. Snipes, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Cedrick L. Snipes seeks to appeal the district court's order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant

must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Alvarez, 210 is Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. F.3d 309, 310 in (5th nature Cir. and 2000) (holding appeal § 3582 period

proceeding applies).

criminal

ten-day

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 on February 27, 2009. Snipes's undated notice of appeal was mailed in an

envelope bearing a postmark of March 18, 2009, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), a date beyond the ten-day appeal period Because but the within notice the of thirty-day appeal was excusable filed neglect the period. excusable

within

neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Snipes 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. REMANDED 2