Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Neal, 98-7046 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7046 Visitors: 61
Filed: Jul. 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7046 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH BENNETT NEAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-92-8-F) Submitted: June 30, 1999 Decided: July 13, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Bennett Neal, Appellant Pr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7046 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH BENNETT NEAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-92-8-F) Submitted: June 30, 1999 Decided: July 13, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Bennett Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Bennett Neal seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for the reduction of his sentence. Because Neal filed his appeal beyond the ten-day appeal period but during the thirty-day period in which the district court could extend the filing period upon a showing of excusable neglect, this Court remanded the case to the district court for a finding on this issue. Neal failed to respond to the district court’s order directing him to state his reasons for the late filing, and thus, the district court found that excusable neglect did not exist. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Neal’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). 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. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer