United States v. Harris , 209 F. App'x 360 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7573
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEROME DERRICK HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(8:96-cr-00260-PJM)
Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 22, 2006
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Derrick Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Derrick Harris seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). In criminal cases, 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 district 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 11, 2006. Harris filed the
notice of appeal on August 31, 2006,* after the ten-day period
expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period.
Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect
period, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and remand the
case to the district court for the court to determine whether
Harris has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an
extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as
*
In calculating the file date of his notice of appeal, we have
given Harris the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)
and Fed. R. App. P. 4(c).
- 2 -
supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration.
REMANDED
- 3 -