United States v. Martin , 199 F. App'x 209 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6801
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DOMAINE MARTIN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock,
    Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:93-cr-00122-FWB-1)
    Submitted: August 31, 2006                 Decided: September 8, 2006
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Domaine Martin, Appellant Pro Se.       John Warren Stone, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Domaine Martin appeals the district court’s order denying
    his motion for reduction of sentence under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3585
    (b)
    (2000). In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of
    appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment.        Fed. R. App. P.
    4(b)(1)(A).        The district court, with or without a motion, may
    grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal of up to
    thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause.
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 
    759 F.2d 351
    , 353
    (4th Cir. 1985).
    The district court entered judgment on March 29, 2006;
    the ten-day appeal period expired on April 12, 2006. Martin filed
    a notice of appeal after the ten-day appeal period expired but
    within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice
    of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand
    the case to the district court for the court to determine whether
    Martin has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an
    extension     of    the   ten-day   appeal   period.   The   record,   as
    supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
    consideration.        We deny Martin’s motion for a certificate of
    appealability as unnecessary.
    REMANDED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6801

Citation Numbers: 199 F. App'x 209

Judges: Gregory, Michael, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/8/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023