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)
10-7295•United States of America v. Brandi Cambron
10-7295Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 5, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7295
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRANDI CAMBRON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:07-cr-00036-RGD-TEM-1)
Submitted: December 3, 2010 Decided: January 5, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandi Cambron, Appellant Pro Se. Brian James Samuels,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 4 --
2
PER CURIAM:
In March 2008, Brandi Cambron was sentenced to four
months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and
restitution, after she pleaded guilty to wire fraud. In
January 2010, Cambron’s probation officer filed a petition with
the district court detailing a multitude of alleged violations
of the conditions of Cambron’s release. The district court
found that Cambron had violated those conditions and sentenced
her to six months’ imprisonment with no additional supervised
release. The district court entered the order on May 20, 2010.
On July 22, 2010, Cambron filed a letter motion for
reconsideration seeking a reduction of her sentence. On
July 29, the district court granted Cambron’s motion for
reconsideration, but concluded that it lacked the authority to
grant the relief Cambron requested, and indicated that it would
not grant such relief in any event. Cambron noted an appeal of
this order, at the earliest, on August 31, 2010.*
The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal as untimely. We deny the motion. In criminal cases, the
defendant must file the notice of appeal within fourteen days
* Cambron’s notice of appeal is dated August 31, 2010. It
was filed by the district court on September 7, 2010.
Accordingly, we deem the date Cambron signed her notice of
appeal as the earliest date she could have complied with the
filing requirement of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1).
-- 2 of 4 --
3
after entry of the judgment or order being appealed. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). 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). Here, the Government correctly points out
that Cambron’s notice of appeal fell significantly outside the
time to appeal the May 19 revocation order, even with an
allowance for excusable neglect. However, Cambron’s notice of
appeal references the July 29 order granting her motion for
reconsideration but denying the requested relief.
Cambron’s notice of appeal from the July 29 order was
filed beyond the fourteen-day appeal period, but within the
excusable neglect period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Because
the district court’s order misinformed Cambron she had sixty
days in which to note her appeal, we find excusable neglect
appears on the face of the record. See United States v. Reyes
Turning to the merits of Cambron’s appeal, we have
reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. As the district court held, none of the
grounds for modifying a final sentence, set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (2006), are applicable to Cambron’s case. Therefore,
,
759 F.2d 351, 354 (4th Cir. 1985). Thus, we will exercise
jurisdiction over Cambron’s appeal.
-- 3 of 4 --
4
the district court correctly found itself without jurisdiction
to grant the requested relief. See United States v. Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir.), cert. denied
Accordingly, although we deny the Government’s motion
to dismiss, we affirm the decision of the district court. 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.
, 130 S. Ct. 3530
(2010).
AFFIRMED
-- 4 of 4 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.