Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy RICE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-18
Citations: 318 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 09-6073
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tommy RICE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 318
Pages: 196–196

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tommy RICE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-6073.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 12, 2009.
Decided: March 18, 2009.
Tommy Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Rice seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). In criminal eases, 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 ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the distl'iet 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 denying the motion for reduction of sentence on August 1, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on January 8, 2009. Because Rice failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we deny his motion for appellate jurisdiction and 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.
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).