Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Trinity M. WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-05
Citations: 431 F. App'x 364
Docket Number: No. 09-11219
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Trinity M. WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 364–365

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Trinity M. WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-11219
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 5, 2011.
Jeffrey Robert Haag, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Trinity M. Willis, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Trinity M. Willis, federal prisoner # 34722-177, challenges the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Willis did not file a notice of appeal within the period set forth in Rule 4(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Previously, we construed Willis's late notice of appeal as a motion for an extension of time in which to file an appeal, and we remanded this case to the district court for a determination of whether Willis's untimely filing was due to excusable neglect or good cause. On remand, the district court found that Willis's motion for an extension was not timely, as Rule 4(b)(4) allows a district court to extend the appeal period no more than 30 days beyond the original deadline for filing a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause and, here, Willis's motion was filed well outside the 30-day window. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b).
Because Willis did not file a timely notice of appeal or motion for an extension, the district court did not err in enforcing the time limitations set forth in Rule 4(b), and we may not reverse its decision to do so. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Torres-Jacinto, 300 Fed.Appx. 292 (5th Cir.2008). The instant appeal is DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.