USA v. Trinity Willis, No. 09-11219 (5th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 09-11219 Document: 00511530162 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-11219 Summary Calendar July 5, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee v. TRINITY M. WILLIS, Defendant Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07 CR 33 1 Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Trinity M. Willis, federal prisoner # 34722-177, challenges the district court s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Willis did not file a notice of appeal within the period set forth in Rule 4(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Previously, we construed Willis s late notice of appeal as a motion for an extension of time in which to file an appeal, and we remanded this case to the district court for a determination of whether Willis s untimely * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 09-11219 Document: 00511530162 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2011 No. 09-11219 filing was due to excusable neglect or good cause. On remand, the district court found that Willis s motion for an extension was not timely, as Rule 4(b)(4) allows a district court to extend the appeal period no more than 30 days beyond the original deadline for filing a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause and, here, Willis s motion was filed well outside the 30-day window. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b). Because Willis did not file a timely notice of appeal or motion for an extension, the district court did not err in enforcing the time limitations set forth in Rule 4(b), and we may not reverse its decision to do so. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Torres-Jacinto, 300 F. App x 292 (5th Cir. 2008). The instant appeal is 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.