US v. Cephus Pierce, No. 08-8254 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 26, 2009.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEPHUS PIERCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH-24) Submitted: June 8, 2010 Decided: June 22, 2010 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cephus Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cephus order denying U.S.C. § 3582 Pierce his seeks motion (2006). for In to appeal reduction criminal the of district sentence cases court s under decided 18 before December 1, 2009, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and Rule 4(b)(1)(A) appeal period applies). 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 September 23, 2008. notice of appeal was filed on October 14, 2008. the The We remanded to the district court to determine if Pierce made a showing of good cause or excusable neglect to warrant an extension of the appeal period. The warranted. appeal or district and held that an extension was not Because Pierce failed to file a timely notice of to obtain dismiss the appeal. facts court legal an extension of the appeal period, we We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.
