Case ID: f-appx_68/html/0525-01.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. Riccardo Mercellus DAVEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4377.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 8, 2003.
    Decided July 18, 2003.
    Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derrick George Arjune, Derrick Arjune & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, New York, for Appellant. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Riccardo Mercellus Davey seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of time to file of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th 0.1985).

The district court entered its judgment on March 24, 2002; the ten-day appeal period expired on April 7, 2003. Davey filed his notice of appeal on April 28, 2003, 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 deny the Government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Davey 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 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.

REMANDED.