Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andres NARANJO-SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-16
Citations: 250 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 06-51134
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andres NARANJO-SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andres NARANJO-SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-51134
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 16, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District Of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Andres NaranjoSantos (Naranjo) seeks to appeal the 24-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Naranjo had 10 days from the entry of the July 5, 2006, judgment to file a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). As the parties concede, his pro se August 14, 2006, notice of appeal was untimely.
A district court may grant a defendant an additional 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4). Because Naranjo's pro se notice of appeal was filed within this 30-day period, it sufficed as a motion for a finding on excusable neglect or good cause. See United States v. Golding, 739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir.1984).
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court for a finding under Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4). Id. Upon making the finding, the district court shall promptly return the case to this court for dismissal or further proceedings, as may be appropriate.
REMANDED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.