United States v. Girtley ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  June 14, 2007
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 05-30345
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    LAWRENCE GIRTLEY, also known as Pee Wee,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:03-CR-257-21
    --------------------
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Court-appointed counsel for Lawrence Girtley has filed a
    motion seeking leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as
    required by Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).       Girtley
    was convicted following a guilty plea of conspiracy to possess
    with the intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine
    hydrochloride and 50 grams or more of cocaine base and was
    sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 05-30345
    -2-
    Girtley had 10 days from the entry of the December 16, 2004,
    judgment to file a timely notice of appeal.       See FED. R. APP. P.
    4(b)(1)(A).    Girtley’s pro se notice of appeal was untimely.
    See 
    id.
       A district court may grant a defendant an additional
    30 days in which to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of
    excusable neglect or good cause.     See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4).
    Girtley’s notice of appeal, which was filed within this 30-day
    period, sufficed as a motion for a finding on excusable neglect
    or good cause.     See United States v. Golding, 
    739 F.2d 183
    , 184
    (5th Cir. 1984).
    Accordingly, counsel’s motion is held in abeyance and the
    case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of
    a finding under FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4).    
    Id.
       Upon making the
    finding, the district court shall promptly return the case to
    this court for dismissal or further proceedings, as may be
    appropriate.    We retain jurisdiction over the appeal except for
    the purposes of the limited remand.
    LIMITED REMAND; MOTION HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING REMAND.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-30345

Judges: Jolly, Dennis, Clement

Filed Date: 6/15/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024