United States v. Lewis , 304 F. App'x 211 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6665
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENITRA CARMITA LEWIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (5:06-cr-00057-gee-jgw-4)
Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: July 8, 2008
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Denitra Carmita Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Albert Lustig,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Denitra Carmita Lewis seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying her motion for reduction of sentence pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). In a criminal case, a notice of
appeal must be filed within ten days after the order appealed from
is entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). However, with or
without a motion, the district court may extend the time to file a
notice of appeal for an additional thirty days upon a finding 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).
While the district court dismissed Lewis’ motion for
sentence reduction on March 12, 2008, the district court identified
March 22, 2008, as the “effective date” of the order. On April 21,
2008, Lewis filed a notice of appeal.* While the notice of appeal
was filed after the ten-day appeal period expired, it was filed
within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Therefore, we
remand the case to the district court for a determination as to
whether Lewis has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting
an extension of the appeal period. The record, as supplemented,
will then be returned to this court for further consideration. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
*
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
-2-
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
REMANDED
-3-