Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gokhan Bergal appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an extension of time to appeal the court’s August 6, 2015, order denying his motions for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). Bergal did not seek an extension of time until November 13, nearly two months after the expiration of the excusable neglect period. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), (4); cf. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Because the district court was without 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a conviction is deemed final on the date of sentencing when there is no evidence that notice of appeal was filed (B) holding that pro se prisoners 28 usc  2254 application deemed filed for limitation purposes when deposited with prison officials for mailing (C) holding that prisoners legal materials are deemed filed on the date they are deposited with prison officials for mailing (D) holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court (E) holding that a pro se prisoners notice of appeal is considered filed upon delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court
Output (English): holding that a pro se prisoners notice of appeal is considered filed upon delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court