UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM HARRIS TAFT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-208)
Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alton L. Gwaltney, III, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; Michael E. Savage,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Harris Taft, Jr., seeks to appeal his conviction
and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the
notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). 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 judgment on November 10, 2004;
the ten-day appeal period expired on November 24, 2004. Taft filed
the notice of appeal after the ten-day period expired but within
the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of
appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the
case to the district court for the court to determine whether Taft
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. We defer
action on the joint motion to remand for resentencing.
REMANDED
*
Taft filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of
appeal on December 15, 2004, which he asserts in his brief on
appeal that the district court granted. Our review of the district
court’s docket, however, reveals no entry for such an order.
- 2 -