UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7577
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD A. JENNINGS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00400-RLW-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2008 Decided: January 8, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald A. Jennings, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Wiley Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald A. Jennings seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under
18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). In criminal cases, the
defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after
the entry of the order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th
Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is criminal in
nature and ten-day appeal period applies). 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 July 11, 2008. Jennings
filed the notice of appeal, at the earliest, on July 29, 2008, ∗
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 limited purpose of allowing the court
to determine whether Jennings has shown excusable neglect or
good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period.
∗
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court
for further consideration.
REMANDED
3