United States v. Michael Dyson ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6318
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL CASSANOVA DYSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00021-FPS-JES-6)
Submitted: January 24, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Cassanova Dyson, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr,
Michael D. Stein, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Cassanova Dyson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion
to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2011). In criminal cases, the
defendant must file the notice of appeal within fourteen days
after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see
United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010)
(explaining that proceedings pursuant to § 3582 are “criminal in
nature”). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable
neglect or good cause, the district court may extend the appeal
period by up to thirty days. 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 Dyson’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motion on January 18, 2012. Dyson filed the notice
of appeal, at the earliest, on February 16, 2012. * Because Dyson
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension
of the appeal period, we remanded this case to allow the
district court to determine whether Dyson could demonstrate
excusable neglect or good cause to justify extending the appeal
*
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)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266 (1988).
2
period. In accordance with our remand order, the district court
received evidence pertaining to the issue and determined that
Dyson failed to make the requisite showing.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and agree that
Dyson has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause
justifying a relaxation of the fourteen-day appeal period. See
generally Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-14 (2007); United
States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 750 (10th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3