United States v. Watts , 259 F. App'x 559 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4911
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LUCIEN CLARKE WATTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00173-JRS)
Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Diamond, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Matthew Childs
Ackley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lucien Clarke Watts seeks to appeal the district court
order denying his motion for leave to file his notice of appeal out
of time. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of
appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App.
P. 4(b)(1)(A). 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 the order on August 7, 2007.
Watts filed the notice of appeal on September 10, 2007, after the
ten-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 determine whether Watts has shown excusable
neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal
period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this
court for further consideration.
REMANDED
*
The notice of appeal was entered in the district court on
September 17, 2007. However, because Watts is a pro se inmate, his
notice is deemed filed on the date he gave it to prison officials
for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Fed.
R. App. P. 4(c)(1).
- 2 -