US v. Faiza Maxwell, No. 08-8044 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 20, 2010.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FAIZA MAXWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00152-FDW-11) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Faiza Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Faiza order denying Maxwell her seeks motion U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). for to appeal reduction the of district sentence court s under 18 In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. judgment. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding applies). is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period 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 entered its order denying motion for reduction of sentence on August 22, 2008. the Maxwell filed the notice of appeal on September 19, 2008, after the tenday 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 Maxwell 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.
