United States v. Michael Dyson ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED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: June 19, 2012 Decided: July 2, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
for reduction in his sentence, predicated on Guidelines
Amendment 750. 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.
Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582
proceeding is criminal in nature and Rule 4(b)(1)(A) appeal
period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of
excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an
extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. 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 the
motion on January 18, 2012. Dyson filed the notice of appeal on
February 16, 2012, * after the fourteen-day 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
*
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); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
276 (1988).
2
determine whether Dyson can demonstrate excusable neglect or
good cause warranting an extension of the fourteen-day appeal
period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to
this Court for further consideration.
REMANDED
3