US v. Cedrick Snipes

Filing 920100428

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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, Senior District Judge. (2:05-cr-00718-PMD-1)

Submitted:

April 15, 2010

Decided:

April 28, 2010

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

NIEMEYER,

Circuit

Judge,

and

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

motion for reduction of sentence on February 27, 2009.

Snipes's

undated notice of appeal was mailed in an envelope bearing a postmark of March 18, 2009. Because Snipes failed to file a

timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure was amended effective December 1, 2009, to establish a fourteen-day appeal period. Additionally, Fed. R. App. P. 26, governing computation of time periods, was amended effective December 1, 2009, to require counting all calendar days, rather than omitting weekends and holidays, as formerly required. Because the prior version of the rules applies in this appeal, that is the version cited in this opinion.

*

2

period, we remanded this case to the district court for the court to determine whether Snipes could demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause to justify extending the ten-day appeal period. In accordance with our remand order, the district court

directed the parties to file additional briefing on the issue and determined that Snipes failed to make the requisite showing. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and agree that Snipes has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause justifying a relaxation of the ten-day appeal period set forth in Rule 4(b)(1)(A). See generally Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.

205, 208-13 (2007); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 750 (10th Cir. 2008). oral Accordingly, argument we dismiss the the facts appeal. and We legal

dispense

with

because

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3