US v. Danny Beckham, No. 08-8177 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8177 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANNY BECKHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00087-RJC-DCK-2) Submitted: February 23, 2009 Decided: March 23, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Beckham, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny Beckham seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. In a criminal case, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. of judgment. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day period applies). With or without a motion, 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 motion on August 27, 2008. on September 22, 2008, entered its order denying the Beckham filed the notice of appeal after the ten-day period within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. expired but Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand to permit the district court to determine whether Beckham has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED 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.