UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6529
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT FERDINAND ANNEHEIM, a/k/a Bobby,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00020-RLV-2)
Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 26, 2009
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Ferdinand Anneheim, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack
Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Anneheim seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582 (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 March 4, 2009. Anneheim
filed the notice of appeal on March 21, at the earliest, * 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 Anneheim has shown
*
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
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.
REMANDED
3