Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-08254/USCOURTS-ca4-08-08254-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cephus Pierce
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEPHUS PIERCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH-24)

Submitted: June 8, 2010 Decided: June 22, 2010

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cephus Pierce, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 08-8254 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Cephus Pierce seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). In criminal cases decided before 

December 1, 2009, 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 Rule 4(b)(1)(A) 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 order denying the 

motion for reduction of sentence on September 23, 2008. The 

notice of appeal was filed on October 14, 2008. We remanded to 

the district court to determine if Pierce made a showing of good 

cause or excusable neglect to warrant an extension of the appeal 

period. The district court held that an extension was not 

warranted. Because Pierce 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 

Appeal: 08-8254 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 08-8254 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/22/2010 Pg: 3 of 3