The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-6992•United States of America v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 5th Cir. 2000 . With or without a motion, the district…
03-6992Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 22, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6992
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN WESLEY FAIRCLOTH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-95-72-H)
Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Wesley Faircloth, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
John Wesley Faircloth seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
In criminal matters, the defendant must file his notice of
appeal within ten days of 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). With or without a motion, the district court may grant
an extension of time to file of up to thirty days upon a showing of
excusable neglect or good cause. 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 on February 17, 2003; the
ten-day appeal period expired on March 3, 2003. Faircloth’s notice
of appeal was postmarked May 27, 2003, and received by the district
court on May 29, 2003, well beyond the expiration of the ten-day
appeal period and thirty-day excusable neglect period.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.