US v. Michael Thompson, No. 09-6092 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 14, 2009.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6092 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL J. THOMPSON, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00480-TSE-1) Submitted: December 14, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Decided: Circuit December 29, 2009 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Lundberg Medzius, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael J. Thompson challenges the district court s order granting the Government s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion. * We have reviewed Accordingly, we the deny record the and find Government s no reversible motion to Thompson s appeal and affirm the district court s order. error. dismiss United States v. Thompson, No. 1:05-cr-00480-TSE-1 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 5, 2008; entered Dec. 8, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Thompson did not appeal the district court s order within the requisite ten-day appeal period and the Government moved to dismiss the appeal. Because Thompson asserted that he did not receive notice of the district court s order until after his time to appeal expired, and because Thompson filed his notice of appeal within the thirty-day excusable neglect period, this court remanded the matter to the district court for an excusable neglect determination. On remand, the district court determined that Thompson established excusable neglect for his untimely filing, and the matter has been returned for this court s consideration. 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.
