US v. Reginald Jones

Filing 920090917

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7193

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGINALD CORNELL JONES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00466-JRS-1)

Submitted:

September 4, 2009

Decided:

September 17, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Cornell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Norval George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Reginald Cornell Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant must

file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Alvarez, Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. 210 is 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 denying the

motion for reduction of sentence on April 23, 2009.

Jones filed

the notice of appeal on June 1, 2009, after the ten-day period expired Because but the within notice the of thirty-day appeal was excusable filed neglect the period.

within

excusable

neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Jones has shown excusable neglect or 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).

2

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. motion to dismiss, We defer action on the Government's the district court's excusable

pending

neglect determination. REMANDED

3