United States v. Pierce , 384 F. App'x 238 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CEPHUS PIERCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH-24)
Submitted: June 8, 2010 Decided: June 22, 2010
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cephus Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cephus Pierce seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). In criminal cases decided before
December 1, 2009, the defendant must file the notice of appeal
within ten 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 for reduction of sentence on September 23, 2008. The
notice of appeal was filed on October 14, 2008. We remanded to
the district court to determine if Pierce made a showing of good
cause or excusable neglect to warrant an extension of the appeal
period. The district court held that an extension was not
warranted. Because Pierce failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3