US v. Dwayne Jenkins, No. 08-8611 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8611 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DWAYNE H. JENKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:93-cr-00081-1) Submitted: April 15, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne H. Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Elaine O Boyle, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwayne H. Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). reduction of sentence under 18 In criminal cases, 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 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 April 22, 2008. of appeal was filed on December 9, 2008. to file extension of dispense with a the timely appeal oral Because Jenkins notice of appeal or period, we dismiss the argument because The notice See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). failed the the to facts obtain appeal. and an We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.