UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7213
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY JARROD ARTIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:99-cr-00046-RGD-2)
Submitted: February 24, 2009 Decided: March 24, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Jarrod Artis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Jarrod Artis seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying its own 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 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 April 28, 2008. The notice
of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on June 18, 2008. Because
Artis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension of the appeal period, * we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
Artis’ motion for reconsideration of the April 28, 2008
judgment was dated on May 13, 2008, one day beyond the ten-day
appeal period. Thus, it did not extend the time in which Artis
had to file a notice of appeal. See United States v. Ibarra,
502 U.S. 1, 4 n.2 (1991).
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3