US v. Crews, No. 07-6714 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 26, 2008.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6714 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL EARL CREWS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:00-cr-00087-2H) Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: November 2, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Earl Crews, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Earl Crews seeks to appeal the district court s denial of his Renewed Motion to Waive Fine. In criminal matters, the defendant must file a notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of 4(b)(1)(A). the district court s order. Fed. R. App. P. 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 denied Crews Renewed Motion to Waive Fine by order entered on September 20, 2006, and denied his motion for reconsideration of that order by order entered on December 8, Crews filed his notice of appeal on January 10, 2007,* after 2006. the ten-day appeal period excusable neglect period. expired but within the thirty-day 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 Crews has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the tenday appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED * See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). - 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.
