USA v. Eric Rayonn Rowls, No. 20-13708 (11th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 25, 2022.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 20-13708 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-13708 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ERIC RAYONN ROWLS, a.k.a. "E"., a.k.a. Eric Rannon Rowls, Defendant-Appellant. USCA11 Case: 20-13708 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Page: 2 of 4 Opinion of the Court 20-13708 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00016-RV-MAF-1 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Eric Rowls appeals pro se the denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The United States asks that we dismiss Rowls’s appeal for failure to file timely his notice of appeal. We treat Rowls’s notice of appeal dated September 14, 2020, as a motion for an extension of time and remand for the limited purpose of having the district court make a finding about good cause or excusable neglect. A defendant must file a notice of appeal within 14 days of the entry of judgment or the order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i); see United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[A] § 3582(c)(2) motion is not a civil post-conviction action, but rather a continuation of a criminal case.”). This rule is not jurisdictional, so the government must either object to an untimely notice or forfeit its objection. United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court may extend the period an USCA11 Case: 20-13708 20-13708 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 4 3 additional 30 days “[u]pon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). A motion for reconsider filed in a criminal case can toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. United States v. Vicaria, 963 F.2d 1412, 1413–14 (11th Cir. 1992). The motion tolls the deadline when filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment. Id. at 1414. The time to file the notice of appeal “begins to run anew following disposition of the motion.” Id. We remand for the limited purpose of having the district court determine whether an extension based on good cause or excusable neglect is warranted. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The district court denied Rowls’s motion for compassionate release on July 10, 2020. Eleven days later, on July 21, 2020, Rowls filed by email a motion “asking for the [district] court to alter or amend [its] judgment.” Although Rowls could not rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) in his criminal case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Fair, 326 F.3d at 1318, we construe his motion liberally as a motion for reconsideration, Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). That motion tolled the deadline to appeal until its denial on August 4, 2020. See Vicaria, 963 F.2d at 1414. Rowls asked “for the notice of appeal to be filed” in a letter he dated as September 14, 2020. Because Rowls filed his late notice before expiration of the additional 30-day period to move for an extension of time in which to appeal, we remand for the district court to make a finding whether good cause or excusable neglect exists to justify an USCA11 Case: 20-13708 4 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Opinion of the Court Page: 4 of 4 20-13708 extension. See United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1317–18 (11th Cir. 1983). REMANDED.
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.
