United States v. Rankin

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 3, 2008
No. 08-60297
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAMES VAUGHN RANKIN
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:04-CR-186-1
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Vaughn Rankin appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for
an extension of time to file an appeal under FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4). He argues
that the district court abused its discretion when denying his motion. Although
the district court determined that Rankin failed to establish both good cause and
excusable neglect for an extension, on appeal Rankin relies solely upon the good
cause requirement of Rule 4(b)(4). He argues that he changed his mind about
appealing within the time permitted by Rule 4(b)(4), his appeal is nonfrivolous,
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 08-60297
and he could not focus on the decision to appeal because, after the judgment was
entered, he was transferred to a different facility.
“Rule 4 provides limited recourse for defendants who miss the filing
deadline by permitting the district court, upon finding good cause or excusable
neglect, to extend the time to file a notice of appeal for up to 30 days from the
expiration of the time otherwise prescribed.” See United States v. Plascencia,
537 F.3d 385, 388 (5th Cir. 2008). Rule 4 is an inflexible claims processing rule
that the district court may strictly enforce. See id. at 389, n.14. The district
court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Rankin failed to establish
good cause that warranted an extension of time under Rule 4(b)(4). See Rule
4(b)(4); United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 846 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2