UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6526

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEDRICK L. SNIPES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (2:05-cr-00718-PMD-1)

Submitted: April 15, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedrick L. Snipes, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cedrick L. Snipes seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order granting his motion for reduction of sentence 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.*

The district court entered its order granting the 

motion for reduction of sentence on February 27, 2009. Snipes’s 

undated notice of appeal was mailed in an envelope bearing a 

postmark of March 18, 2009. Because Snipes failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal 

 Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see 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). 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).

 * Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure was 

amended effective December 1, 2009, to establish a fourteen-day 

appeal period. Additionally, Fed. R. App. P. 26, governing 

computation of time periods, was amended effective December 1, 

2009, to require counting all calendar days, rather than 

omitting weekends and holidays, as formerly required. Because 

the prior version of the rules applies in this appeal, that is 

the version cited in this opinion.
3

period, we remanded this case to the district court for the 

court to determine whether Snipes could demonstrate excusable 

neglect or good cause to justify extending the ten-day appeal 

period. In accordance with our remand order, the district court 

directed the parties to file additional briefing on the issue 

and determined that Snipes failed to make the requisite showing.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and agree that 

Snipes has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause 

justifying a relaxation of the ten-day appeal period set forth 

in Rule 4(b)(1)(A). See generally Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 

205, 208-13 (2007); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 750 

(10th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, 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