UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7090
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN PAUL SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:02-cr-00064-JPB-7)
Submitted: November 5, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
John Paul Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti,
Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Paul Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and his motion for reconsideration.
In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal
within fourteen days after entry of the order. 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 Rule 4(b)(1)(A) 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 denied Smith’s § 3582(c)(2) motion
on February 15, 2012 and his motion for reconsideration on
June 8, 2012. Smith filed his motion for reconsideration at the
earliest on May 31, 2012 and his notice of appeal on June 18,
2012. * Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed as to
the February 15, 2012 order, we dismiss the appeal in part as to
*
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
that order. We affirm the district court’s June 8, 2012 order
denying Smith’s motion for reconsideration. See United
States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2010). 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3