United States v. Palmer ( 2014 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Criminal No. 07-207 (RJL)
FILER
DEC M 201%
V.
RUSSELL CARLTON PALMER,
Defendant.
QVVVVVVV
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
. Courtsf m D. . R
MEMORANDUM OPINION or e usmcmcmm
(December 3 ,2014)
I denied Defendant Russell Palmer’s motion for a sentence reduction on August
23, 2013. Mem. Order [Dkt. #37]. Mr. Palmer, acting pro se, mailed his Notice of
Appeal on September 10, 2013. Notice of Appeal [Dkt. #38]. This was outside of the
fourteen day period in which a criminal defendant is entitled to file an appeal. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). However, a district court may extend the time period in which to file
an appeal for thirty days “[u]pon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b)(4). After the government argued that Mr. Palmer’s appeal was untimely,
our Circuit Court remanded to me “for a determination whether the appeal period should
be extended under Rule 4(b)(4).” Order [Dkt. #40].
On September 8“‘, I ordered each of the parties to submit a “brief addressing
whether there is good cause to extend the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4).”
Order [Dkt. #41]. Both parties received an extension until November 5, 2014. Order
[Dkt. #45]. The government filed its brief on November 4, 2014. Govt.’s Resp. to the
Court’s Sept. 8, 2014 Order [Dkt. #44]. To date, Mr. Palmer has not submitted a brief
addressing whether there is good cause to extend the appeal period.
“The time limits specified in the rules serve Vital interests of efficiency and
finality in the administration of justice, and are not designed merely to ensnare hapless
litigants.” United States v. Long, 905 F.2d 1572, 1574-75 (DC. Cir. 1990). The party
seeking the extension must demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause. Id. at 1574(explaining that a showing of excusable neglect “is a prerequisite for obtaining the thirty-
day extension contemplated by rule 4(b)”). Although given ample opportunity, Mr.
Palmer has offered no reason for the delay, or made any other showing of excusable
neglect or good cause for an extension. Accordingly, I find that Mr. Palmer is not
entitled to the thirty-day extension described in Rule 4(b).
\l
RICHA x J.‘ EON
United States ’strict Judge