United States v. Owens

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

DARRON OWENS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (5:01-cr-00084-CMC)

Submitted: May 15, 2009 Decided: June 11, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darron Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Darron Owens 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 § 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 May 20, 2008. Owens filed

the notice of appeal on June 12, 2008. ∗ Because Owens failed to

file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension of the

appeal period, we remanded this case to the district court for

the court to determine whether Owens could demonstrate excusable

neglect or good cause to justify extending the ten-day appeal

∗
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

2
period. In accordance with our remand order, the district court

received evidence pertaining to the issue and determined that

Owens failed to make the requisite showing.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and agree that

Owens has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause

justifying a relaxation of the ten-day appeal period set forth

in Rule 4(b)(1)(A). See generally Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.

205, __, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363-66 (2007); United States v.

Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 750 (10th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED