UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4544
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DENNIS LEE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:02-cr-00806-CWH)
Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 27, 2007
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. James Hoffmeyer, LAW OFFICE OF W. JAMES HOFFMEYER, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Lee Williams appeals from his criminal judgment.
Williams’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The Government has not filed a
reply brief. Williams has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We
remand for the district court to rule on Williams’ pending motion
for an extension of time to file his appeal.
Williams’ judgment was entered on April 6, 2006. His
notice of appeal was due on April 20, 2006. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(b), 26(a). Williams’ counsel filed a notice of appeal on May 22,
2006. At the same time, counsel filed a motion for an extension of
time to file a notice of appeal admitting that the appeal was late
because he was appointed late in the proceedings and was not
familiar enough with the case to file a timely appeal. The
district court may grant an extension of time up to thirty days
after the expiration of the appeal period, if there is a finding of
good cause or excusable neglect. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The
district court only has authority, however, “to extend the time to
file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed thirty days from
the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(b).”
Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The time periods presented in Rule 4(b)
are mandatory and jurisdictional. United States v. Raynor, 939
F.2d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 1991). Williams’ counsel filed his notice
- 2 -
of appeal and motion for an extension of time on the last day of
the excusable neglect period.
Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court to
rule on Williams’ pending motion for an extension of time to file
the appeal. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to
this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
- 3 -