USA v. Rankin, No. 08-60297 (5th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-60297 Summary Calendar November 3, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAMES VAUGHN RANKIN Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:04-CR-186-1 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* James Vaughn Rankin appeals the district court s denial of his motion for an extension of time to file an appeal under FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4). He argues that the district court abused its discretion when denying his motion. Although the district court determined that Rankin failed to establish both good cause and excusable neglect for an extension, on appeal Rankin relies solely upon the good cause requirement of Rule 4(b)(4). He argues that he changed his mind about appealing within the time permitted by Rule 4(b)(4), his appeal is nonfrivolous, * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 08-60297 and he could not focus on the decision to appeal because, after the judgment was entered, he was transferred to a different facility. Rule 4 provides limited recourse for defendants who miss the filing deadline by permitting the district court, upon finding good cause or excusable neglect, to extend the time to file a notice of appeal for up to 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed. See United States v. Plascencia, 537 F.3d 385, 388 (5th Cir. 2008). Rule 4 is an inflexible claims processing rule that the district court may strictly enforce. See id. at 389, n.14. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Rankin failed to establish good cause that warranted an extension of time under Rule 4(b)(4). See Rule 4(b)(4); United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 846 (5th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. 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.
