US v. Walker, No. 06-6772 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 2, 2007.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6772 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH ANTHONY WALKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00522-DCN) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Anthony Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, OFFICE OF THE UNTIED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Anthony Walker appeals the district court s order denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. ยง 3582(c) (2000). In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. 4(b)(1)(A). Fed. R. App. P. The district court, with or without a motion, may grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal 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 judgment on March 31, 2006; the ten-day appeal period expired on April 14, 2006. Walker filed a notice of appeal after the ten-day appeal period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Walker has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.