US v. Aiken, No. 07-6223 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 21, 2007.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEREMY LUJAN AIKEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00092-1) Submitted: October 19, 2007 Decided: November 16, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremy Lujan Aiken, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeremy Lujan Aiken appeals the district court s order denying his motion to compel a substantial assistance motion.* have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Aiken, No. 1:04-cr-00092-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2007). We deny Aiken s motion to order an evidentiary hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * We previously remanded to the district court for that court to determine if excusable neglect existed to warrant extension of the appeal period. While the court did not specifically state whether Aiken had shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting extension of the ten-day appeal period, we conclude from its order that it intended its processing of Aiken s otherwise untimely notice of appeal to reflect its determination that Aiken be accorded the benefit of the permitted extension of time. - 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.