Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0238-01.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. Cephus PIERCE, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-8254.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 8, 2010.
    Decided: June 22, 2010.
    Cephus Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cephus Pierce 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 decided before December 1, 2009, 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 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. RApp. 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 September 23, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on October 14, 2008. We remanded to the district court to determine if Pierce made a showing of good cause or excusable neglect to warrant an extension of the appeal period. The district court held that an extension was not warranted. Because Pierce failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, 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.