UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7532

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

LAMONT HAROLD GARRISON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:98-cr-00132-JCC-13) 

Submitted: December 24, 2008 Decided: January 26, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lamont Harold Garrison, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Lamont Harold Garrison seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order reducing Garrison’s sentence pursuant to his 

motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). 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 tenday 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 granting the 

motion for reduction of sentence on June 2, 2008, and the tenday appeal period ordinarily would have expired on June 16, 

2008. See Fed. R. App. P. 26 (providing that “intermediate 

Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays” are excluded when time 

period is less than eleven days). Although Garrison did not 

file a notice of appeal within this ten-day period, he filed a 

motion to alter or amend the judgment within this time frame. 

 “[T]he Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not 

specifically provide for motions for reconsideration [or] 

prescribe the time in which they must be filed.” Nilson Van & 

2 
Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir. 1985). 

However, the Supreme Court has held that a motion for rehearing 

or reconsideration extends the time for filing a notice of 

appeal in a criminal case if the motion is filed before the 

order sought to be reconsidered becomes final. See United 

States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 4 n.2 (1991) (holding that 

would-be appellant who files a timely motion for reconsideration 

from criminal judgment is entitled to full time period for 

noticing the appeal after the motion to reconsider has been 

decided); United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 7-8 (1976) 

(same); United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 77-79 (1964) 

(same); United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 n.1 (4th Cir. 

1993) (same). 

 The district court entered its order denying 

Garrison’s motion to alter or amend on July 3, 2008. Garrison 

then had ten days, or until July 18, 2008, to timely file his 

notice of appeal. Garrison’s notice of appeal was filed on July 

21, 2008, after the expiration of the appeal period 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 Garrison has shown excusable neglect or good cause 

warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The 

3 
4 

record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for 

further consideration. 

REMANDED