**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 6546** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ROBERT KENNEDY, JR., a/k/a Mosquito , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Danville

. Norman K. Moon , District Judge. ( 4:01

- cr - 70025

- nkm

- 1 )

Submitted : May 6, 2010 Decided: June 15 , 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part ; affirmed in part by u n published per curiam opinion

. Robert Kennedy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph W. H. Mott, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Kenn edy, Jr., seeks to appeal four orders of the district court: an August 4, 2008 order denying Kennedy’s motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006), a February 3, 2009 order denying Kennedy’s second § 3582(c)(2) motion as an u ntimely motion for reconsideration, and two subsequent orders refusing to reopen or extend the appeal period for the August 4, 2008 order and the February 3, 2009 order . We dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part. Kennedy had ten business days after entry of each of the orders in question to note his appeal . Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (2008) ; **∗**

**∗** Rule 4, Fed. R. App. P., has been amended, effective December 1, 2009, to allow fourteen calendar days to note an appeal in a criminal case. However, the amendment is ina pplicable to this appeal. 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). Wit h 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 d istrict court properly found that Kennedy’s efforts to reopen or extend the3 appeal period as to the August 4, 2008 order were untimely and beyond the excusable neglect period. The court also found, as to the February 3, 2009 order, that Kennedy ’s proffere d justification for his late notice of appeal did not constitute excusable neglect warranting extension of the ten

- day appeal period. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and agree that Kennedy has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or good

caus e justifying a relaxation of the ten

- day appeal period of Rule 4(b)(1)(A). See generally United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mitchell , 518 F.3d 740, 750 (10th Cir. 2008). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal to the ex tent it seeks review of the court’s August 4, 2008 and February 3, 2009 orders. As to the district court’s two orders entered February 18, 2009 , and March 18, 2009 , refusing to extend or reopen the appeal period , we find no reversible error and affirm.
Ke nnedy’s appeal is dismissed in part and affirmed in part. We deny Kennedy’s request to place his appeal in abeyance. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials4 before the court and a rgument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART