Court Opinion

ID: 1000733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:45:20.607923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:05.424714
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                  No. 98-4807
CLYDE WALLACE JACKSON, JR., a/k/a
Hondo,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
(CR-97-310)

Submitted: January 18, 2000

Decided: February 4, 2000

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Scott E. Jarvis, SCOTT E. JARVIS & ASSOCIATES, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Clyde W. Jackson appeals from his conviction by guilty plea to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21
U.S.C. § 846 (1994), for which he was sentenced to 102 months
imprisonment. The judgment and commitment order was entered Sep-
tember 24, 1998. On November 3, 1998, the district court received a
pro se notice of appeal from Jackson. No extension of time to appeal
was granted by the district court and Jackson did not request an exten-
sion of time.

In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within
ten days of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). With or
without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of this
time of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353
(4th Cir. 1985). If the defendant files his notice of appeal outside the
ten-day appeal period, but within the thirty-day extension period, the
district court must make factual findings concerning whether there
was excusable neglect which warrants an extension of the appeal
period. See id.

Jackson filed his notice of appeal thirty-nine days after the district
court entered its judgment and commitment order. While this filing
was after the ten-day limit, it was within the thirty-day extension
period applicable upon a showing of excusable neglect. Because Jack-
son filed his notice of appeal outside the ten-day appeal period, but
within the thirty-day extension period, and because the district court
made no finding as to excusable neglect, we remand this case to the
district court with instructions to make factual findings concerning
whether there was excusable neglect which warrants an extension of
the ten-day appeal period.

                     2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

                    3