US v. Stanley Hickman, No. 09-6844 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 8, 2010.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6844 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STANLEY HICKMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:93-cr-00144-BO-3) Submitted: August 31, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Decided: Circuit Judges, October 14, 2009 and HAMILTON, Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stanley Hickman seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion to correct the presentence report. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, Fed. R. App. P. 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 on March 25, Hickman filed the notice of appeal on April 23, 2009, 2009. after the ten-day period expired but before the expiration of the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case whether to the Hickman warranting an district has shown extension of court for excusable the the court neglect ten-day appeal to or determine good cause period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 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.