UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Shawn WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-7442.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: January 15, 2009.
Decided: January 22, 2009.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00161-RLW-1).

Eric Shawn Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Shawn Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal 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 entered its order denying the motion for reduction of sentence on July 9, 2008. Walker filed the notice of appeal on July 28, 2008,[*] after the ten-day

Page 682

period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Walker 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.

[*] For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed.R.App.P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).