USA v. Rhonda Fleming, No. 11-20786 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 12, 2013.
Download PDF
Case: 11-20786 Document: 00512206874 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED April 12, 2013 No. 11-20786 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RHONDA FLEMING, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-513-1 Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rhonda Fleming appeals from the district court s denial of her first motion for new trial. The Government argues that review of that denial is barred because Fleming s notice of appeal was untimely. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i); United States v. Chagra, 735 F.2d 870, 872 (5th Cir. 1984) (holding that an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence must be filed in accordance with Rule 4(b)). * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-20786 Document: 00512206874 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2013 No. 11-20786 A district court may grant a defendant an additional 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4). Fleming s notice of appeal, mailed from the Carswell Federal Medical Center within this additional 30-day period, suffices as a motion for a finding on excusable neglect or good cause. See United States v. Golding, 739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir. 1984). This case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether excusable neglect or good cause entitles Fleming to an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. 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.
