Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-05-07354/USCOURTS-ca4-05-07354-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luther T. Goldsmith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

Document 1

Document 2

Appeal: 05-7354 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/27/2006 Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex

1100 E. Main Street, Suite 501

Richmond, Virginia 23219-3517

Patricia S. Connor

Clerk

www.ca4.uscourts.gov Telephone

(804) 916-2700

 February 27, 2006

 Elizabeth H. Paret

 U. S. DISTRICT COURT

 1000 East Main Street

 Richmond, VA 23219

 Re: 05-7354 US v. Goldsmith

 CR-01-29

 Dear Clerk:

 Enclosed is an opinion of this Court remanding the case for

 limited purpose. The record on appeal is being returned for the

 district court's use. Please return the record, as supplemented,

 to this Court after completing the determination on remand.

 Yours truly,

 PATRICIA S. CONNOR

 Clerk

 /s/ Sarah A. Carmichael

 By: ________________________

 Deputy Clerk

 cc: Luther T. Goldsmith

 Nicholas Stephan Altimari

Appeal: 05-7354 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/27/2006 Pg: 2 of 5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LUTHER T. GOLDSMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (CR-01-29)

Submitted: February 8, 2006 Decided: February 27, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luther T. Goldsmith, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Appeal: 05-7354 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/27/2006 Pg: 3 of 5
*Goldsmith asserted in his notice of appeal that he did not

receive the district court’s order until thirty days after it was

entered.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Luther Thomas Goldsmith seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18

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

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

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309,

310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding § 3582 proceeding is criminal in

nature and ten-day appeal period applies and collecting cases). In

criminal appeals, the district court may extend the time in which

to note an appeal up to thirty days upon a finding of excusable

neglect or good cause, with or without a motion or notice. 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 on its docket on

July 18, 2005, and the ten-day appeal period expired on August 1,

2005. Goldsmith filed his notice of appeal after the ten-day

appeal period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect

period. Because Goldsmith’s notice of appeal was filed within the

excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court

for that court to determine whether Goldsmith 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

Appeal: 05-7354 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/27/2006 Pg: 4 of 5
- 3 -

this court for further consideration. 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.

REMANDED

Appeal: 05-7354 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/27/2006 Pg: 5 of 5