United States v. Rice , 318 F. App'x 196 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6073
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOMMY RICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (7:01-cr-00887-MBS-4)
Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tommy Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 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 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
*
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(1988).
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3