United States v. Knox ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60672
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STANLEY KNOX,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:95-CR0-72-B
- - - - - - - - - -
January 11, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:*
Stanley Knox appeals the district court's order requiring
that he be detained pending trial. The notice of appeal was
filed two days late. This court previously remanded the case for
a finding whether the time for filing the notice of appeal should
be extended because of excusable neglect. See United States v.
Golding, 739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir. 1984). The district court
found that Knox's "counsel confused the rules pertaining to
appealing orders of the district court with Rule 26(c), Fed. R.
App. P, and that the defendant's untimely notice of appeal was
due to excusable neglect."
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinnion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
No. 95-60672
-2-
"``[I]nadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes
construing the rules do not usually constitute excusable
neglect. . . .'" United States v. Clark, 51 U.S. 42, 43 (5th
Cir. 1995) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs., Co. v. Brunswick Assocs.
Ltd. Partnership, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 1496 (1993)). The respondent
does not challenge the district court's finding, however, and the
merits of the appeal are virtually frivolous. Knox has failed to
rebut the statutory presumption that no condition or combination
of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community
if he is released. Knox has thus not shown that the district
court abused its discretion in ordering him detained pending
trial.
AFFIRMED.