Court Opinion

ID: 1024206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:30:04.229892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:03.289938
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
 

  Jeremy Lujan Aiken appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel a substantial assistance motion.
  
   *
  
  We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
   
   *220
   
  error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
  
   See United States v. Aiken,
  
  No. 1:04-cr-00092-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2007). We deny Aiken’s motion to order an evidentiary hearing. 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.
 

   AFFIRMED.
  

   *
  

   We previously remanded to the district court for that court to determine if excusa
    
    *220
    
   ble neglect existed to warrant extension of the appeal period. While the court did not specifically state whether Aiken had shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting extension of the ten-day appeal period, we conclude from its order that it intended its processing of Aiken’s otherwise untimely notice of appeal to reflect its determination that Aiken be accorded the benefit of the permitted extension of time.