Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07223/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07223-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brooks James Terrell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7223

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BROOKS JAMES TERRELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (7:99-cr-00610-HMH)

Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: January 4, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brooks James Terrell, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7223 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/04/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Brooks James Terrell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for modification of sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). In criminal cases, the defendant must

file the notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment.

Fed. R. App. 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 June 19, 2007; the

ten-day appeal period expired on July 3, 2007. Terrell filed a

notice of appeal on August 2, 2007--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 Terrell 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.

REMANDED

Appeal: 07-7223 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/04/2008 Pg: 2 of 2