Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cr-00262/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cr-00262-15/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tevin Tan
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEVIN TAN,

Defendant.

 /

NO. CR. 2:10-00262 WBS 

Ninth Cir. No. 13-10249

ORDER

----oo0oo----

This case has been remanded to this court for the

limited purpose of determining whether the deadline for filing

defendant’s criminal appeal should be extended under Federal Rule

of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4). (Docket No. 95.) Rule 4(b)(4)

provides that “[u]pon a finding of excusable neglect or good

cause, the district court may–-before or after the [fourteen-day]

time has expired, with or without motion or notice–-extend the

time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30

days from the expiration of the time.” See also United States v.

Ono, 72 F.3d 101, 103 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Stolarz,

1

Case 2:10-cr-00262-WBS Document 96 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

547 F.2d 108, 112 (9th Cir. 1976). 

In considering whether to grant an extension of time

due to excusable neglect, the court applies the four equitable

factors established by the Supreme Court in Pioneer Investment

Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507

U.S. 380 (1993). See Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 765 (9th

Cir. 2009) (applying Pioneer factors to determine excusable

neglect for an untimely notice of appeal under Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(a)); see generally Pincay v. Andrews, 389

F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (discussing Pioneer). Here,

the government is unlikely to be prejudiced due to the delay,

defendant’s notice of appeal was late by approximately twenty one

days but judicial proceedings will not likely be negatively

impacted, and defendant has not been shown to be acting in bad

faith. As for the reason for delay, the court notes that

defendant is represented by appointed counsel, yet defendant

filed the appeal pro se. On balance, the factors favor a finding

of excusable neglect. See De-Luis-Conti v. Evans, No. C 05-2234

SBA, 2011 WL 175394, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2011). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant is GRANTED an

extension of thirty days to file his notice of appeal. Since

plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on May 9th, 2013, (Docket

No. 91), twenty-one days into this extension, defendant’s notice

of appeal is timely.

The Clerk of this Court is ordered to transmit a copy

of this Order to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit and to serve this Order on appellant’s

appointed counsel, Danny Duance Brace, Jr., Esq.

2

Case 2:10-cr-00262-WBS Document 96 Filed 05/31/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: May 31, 2013

3

Case 2:10-cr-00262-WBS Document 96 Filed 05/31/13 Page 3 of 3