US v. Ricky Eckles, No. 09-6625 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 12, 2009.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6625 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RICKY BERNARD ECKLES, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-1) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Bernard Eckles, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Ricky order Eckles denying his 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 February 27, 2009. the Eckles notice of appeal was postmarked on March 24, 2009, after the ten-day period neglect period. expired but within the thirty-day excusable 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 Eckles 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.
