US v. Fred Hammond, Jr.

Filing 920090916

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7198 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRED HAMMOND, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:92-cr-00172-JAB-1) Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 16, 2009 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Hammond, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Fred Hammond, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court's order denying 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. 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 April 3, 2008. of appeal was Lack, file of with the filed, 487 a at U.S. the 266, notice period, earliest, 276 of we on June The notice 16, 2009. Hammond an We legal Houston v. failed to (1988). appeal dismiss the Because or the facts to timely appeal obtain extension dispense appeal. and oral argument because contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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?