UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6526
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CEDRICK L. SNIPES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:05-cr-00718-PMD-1)
Submitted: April 15, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cedrick L. Snipes, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cedrick L. Snipes seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting 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 granting the
motion for reduction of sentence on February 27, 2009. Snipes’s
undated notice of appeal was mailed in an envelope bearing a
postmark of March 18, 2009. Because Snipes failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal
*
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure was
amended effective December 1, 2009, to establish a fourteen-day
appeal period. Additionally, Fed. R. App. P. 26, governing
computation of time periods, was amended effective December 1,
2009, to require counting all calendar days, rather than
omitting weekends and holidays, as formerly required. Because
the prior version of the rules applies in this appeal, that is
the version cited in this opinion.
2
period, we remanded this case to the district court for the
court to determine whether Snipes could demonstrate excusable
neglect or good cause to justify extending the ten-day appeal
period. In accordance with our remand order, the district court
directed the parties to file additional briefing on the issue
and determined that Snipes failed to make the requisite showing.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and agree that
Snipes 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, 208-13 (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
3