Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06397/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06397-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Allen Cribb
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-6397 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES ALLEN CRIBB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(4:05-cr-00901-RBH-2)

Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 5, 2008

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Allen Cribb, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6397 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/05/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charles Allen Cribb seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18

U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). In criminal cases, 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 ten-day 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. R.

App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th

Cir. 1985).

The district court entered its oral order denying the

motion for reduction of sentence on January 29, 2008. The notice

of appeal was filed on March 11, 2008. Because Cribb 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

Appeal: 08-6397 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/05/2008 Pg: 2 of 2