USCA11 Case: 19-14999 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-14999
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-00355-RWS-JKL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEVEN SPIGNER,
a.k.a. Old Boy,
a.k.a. Steve-O,
a.k.a. Slim,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 29, 2020)
Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Spigner appeals (1) the district court’s order denying his motion under
USCA11 Case: 19-14999 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 2 of 3
18 U.S.C. section 3582(c) for a sentence reduction based on guideline amendment
782, and (2) the district court’s order denying his untimely motion for
reconsideration. As to Spigner’s appeal of the first order, we GRANT the
government’s motion to dismiss because Spigner filed his notice of appeal nine
months after the order was entered—much more than the fourteen days allowed
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A)(i) and the thirty extra days
allowed for good cause or excusable neglect under Rule 4(b)(4)—and his untimely
motion for reconsideration, filed eight months too late, did not toll the notice of
appeal period. See United States v. Lopez,
562 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009)
(dismissing appeal because “we must apply the time limits of Rule 4(b)” where the
“government has not forfeited its objection to [the appellant’s] untimely notice of
appeal”); United States v. Vicaria,
963 F.2d 1412, 1414 (11th Cir. 1992) (“A motion
for reconsideration in a criminal case must be filed within the period of time allotted
for filing a notice of appeal in order to extend the time for filing the notice of
appeal.”). As to Spigner’s appeal of the second order, we GRANT the government’s
motion for summary affirmance because there is no substantial question that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Spigner’s untimely
reconsideration motion. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162
(5th Cir. 1969) (summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of
the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
2
USCA11 Case: 19-14999 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 3 of 3
question as to the outcome of the case”); United States v. Llewlyn,
879 F.3d 1291,
1294 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Llewlyn appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for
reconsideration. The denial of such a motion is generally reviewed for abuse of
discretion.”); United States v. Taylor,
792 F.2d 1019, 1025 (11th Cir. 1986) (“[T]he
district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied White’s motion to suppress
as untimely.”); United States v. Bailey,
691 F.2d 1009, 1019 (11th Cir. 1982) (“This
request was untimely by several months and as such the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the motion.”).
APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART and SUMMARILY AFFIRMED IN
PART.
3
