United States of America v. William Mckinley Williams, a/k/a PeeWee

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8287
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM MCKINLEY WILLIAMS, a/k/a PeeWee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:00-cr-00119-HCM-1)
Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 26, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William McKinley Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Edward
Patricco, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William McKinley Williams 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, 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 ten-day 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 April 17, 2008. The notice
of appeal was filed on September 22, 2008. Because Williams
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 materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --