US v. Stewart, No. 07-6463 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 17, 2007.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6463 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY WILLIAM STEWART, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00011-2) Submitted: January 28, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry William Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Magee Tompkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry William Stewart seeks to appeal the district court s orders (1) denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court s previous order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of his criminal judgment; and (2) denying his motion for adjustment of restitution payments pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ยง 3572 (2000). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, Fed. R. App. P. 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. excusable 1985). neglect This court determination reviews for an a district abuse of court s discretion. United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered judgments on March 6, 2007, and March 13, 2007. Stewart filed his notices of appeal at the earliest on March 23, 2007, and April 6, 2007, respectively-within the thirty-day period after expiration of the ten-day appeal period. We remanded the case three times to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Stewart had shown excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. 2 In its last order, the district court, after explicitly considering Stewart s proffered reasons for the delay as directed by this court, determined that an extension of the appeal period was not warranted with respect to either appealed order. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making this determination. See 507 U.S. 380, 395 Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., (1993) (providing standard for excusable neglect determination). Because appeal periods, filed. time the Stewart s court notices of declined appeal to were extend not the timely Accordingly, we grant Stewart s motion for extension of to file a response dismiss the appeal. facts district and materials legal before to the district court s order and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
