United States v. Rogers

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8038
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAWRENCE TERRELL ROGERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:01-cr-00077-H-1)
Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Terrell Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Terrell Rogers seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). 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) *; 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 granting the
motion for reduction of sentence on March 16, 2009. The notice
of appeal was filed on October 30, 2009. Because Rogers failed
to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of
*
Fed. R. App. P. 4 was amended effective December 1, 2009,
to establish a fourteen-day appeal period. Additionally, Fed. R.
App. P. 26, governing computation of time periods, was amended
effective December 1, 2009, to require counting all calendar
days, rather than omitting weekends and holidays, as formerly
required. Because the prior version of the rules applies in this
appeal, that is the version cited in this opinion.
2
the appeal period, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3