Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01498/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01498-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerome A. Reed
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1498

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jerome A. Reed

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: February 6, 2017

 Filed: March 1, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, SMITH and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jerome A. Reed pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced him

1

The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

1

Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 16-1498 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2017 Entry ID: 4506777 
to 108 months’ imprisonment. He appeals the reasonableness of the sentence. This

court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Inside a Quik Trip, a clerk saw a handgun fall to the ground where Reed was

standing. The clerk watched him pick it up and put it in his pocket. The clerk 

notified an off-duty Sheriff’s deputy who worked at the store. The deputy stopped

Reed and searched him, discovering a 9 mm pistol. After a computer search revealed

prior felonies, he was arrested.

Reed pled guilty under a binding plea agreement with a sentence of 72 months. 

Reviewing the presentence investigation report, the district court rejected the

agreement. Reed withdrew his plea, eventually pleading guilty without a plea

agreement. At sentencing, the district court determined a guidelines range of 70 to

87 months. Varying upward based on a number of factors including nine prior

felonies, the court sentenced Reed to 108 months. On October 2, 2015, the court filed

the judgment and commitment order.

On February 22, 2016, Reed filed a pro se motion “for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal” and a notice of appeal. The district court authorized

proceeding in forma pauperis. In the notice of appeal, Reed asserted that his attorney,

Byron Woehlecke, told him “he would file the appeal.” 

Appointing Woehlecke to represent Reed on appeal, this court directed

Woehlecke to show cause why the “appealshould not be dismissed as untimely.” He

responded, stating he had “reviewed notes and memories from the date of sentencing

and can find nothing that indicates that this matter was discussed.” He added that if

Reed “was mistakenly under the impression that a notice of appeal and an appeal

were to be filed on his behalf by plea counsel, then arguably his failure to timely file

a notice of appeal pro se is due to excusable neglect.” After Reed filed his

substantive brief in this appeal, the government moved to dismiss, arguing the appeal

was untimely. Reed did not respond.

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1498 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2017 Entry ID: 4506777 
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A)(i), “a defendant’s notice

of appeal must be filed in the district court within 14 days after . . . the entry of either

the judgment or the order being appealed.” “Upon a finding of excusable neglect or

good cause, the district court may—before or after the time has expired, with or

without motion and notice—extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not

to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule

4(b).” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4).

The district court entered the written judgment on October 2, 2015. Reed did

not file a notice of appeal within the 14-day window or seek an extension from the

district court. Rather, he filed his notice of appeal on February 22, 2016, over three

months after the 14-day deadline.

“Although [this court] retain[s] jurisdiction over an untimely appeal from a

criminal judgment, Rule 4(b)’s timeliness requirementsremain inflexible and ‘assure

relief to a party properly raising them.’” United States v. Watson, 623 F.3d 542, 546

(8th Cir. 2010), quoting Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19 (2005). Where,

as here, the government properly objects to the timeliness of an appeal in a “motion

to dismiss and its merits brief . . . it is entitled to dismissal.” Id., citing United States

v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2009). See United States v. Chaney, 641

Fed. Appx. 651, 653 (8th Cir. 2016) (dismissing appeal as untimely); United States

v. Carter, 404 Fed. Appx. 95, 97 (8th Cir. 2010) (same).2

Reed’s appeal is dismissed as untimely.

______________________________

Woehlecke’s statement about “excusable neglect” is irrelevant because Reed

2

did not seek an extension from the district court under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 4(b)(4). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 16-1498 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2017 Entry ID: 4506777