UNPUBLISHED

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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Kennedy, 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 untimely 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 

inapplicable 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). 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 

properly found that Kennedy’s efforts to reopen or extend the 
3

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 proffered 

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 

cause 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 extent 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.

Kennedy’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 materials
4

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART