Case ID: f-appx_139/html/0576-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Harris TAFT, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-5130.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 15, 2005.
    Decided: July 26, 2005.
    Alton L. Gwaltney, III, Moore & Van Allen, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

William Harris Taft, Jr., seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. RApp. P. 4(b)(1)(A). 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 judgment on November 10, 2004; the ten-day appeal period expired on November 24, 2004. Taft filed the notice of appeal 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 Taft has shown 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. We defer action on the joint motion to remand for resentencing.

REMANDED 
      
       Taft filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal on December 15, 2004, which he asserts in his brief on appeal that the district court granted. Our review of the district court’s docket, however, reveals no entry for such an order.