United States v. Robert Henry Golding

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Robert Henry Golding

739 F.2d 183, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19931

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 1984

Docket84-1608

StatusPublished

Cited by51 cases

This text of 739 F.2d 183 (United States v. Robert Henry Golding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Robert Henry Golding, 739 F.2d 183, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19931 (5th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

, On June 18, 1984, the district court set bond at $1,000,000 cash or corporate surety for Robert Henry Golding who is awaiting trial on four counts of narcotics law violations, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801, 841(a)(1), 846, 848, 952, 963 and one count of making a false statement in an application for a United States passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. The record before us contains a Notice of Appeal filed later than ten days, but less than forty days after the entry of the order appealed from. The notice of appeal in a criminal case must be “filed in the district court within 10 days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed.R.App.P. 4(b);' see Wood v. U.S., 391 F.2d 981, 983 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1968); see generally 3A C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 772 at 160 (2d ed. West 1982). However, Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) allows the district court to grant an additional thirty days with or without motion and notice. The filing of an untimely notice of appeal within the additional thirty-day period is customarily treated by this Court in criminal, cases “as a motion for a determination as to whether excusable neglect entitled a defendant to an extension of time to appeal.” U.S. v. Awalt, 728 F.2d 704, 705 (5th Cir.1984). Golding’s notice was filed within the additional period for excusable neglect.

We are compelled to raise sua sponte the issue of timeliness for a timely notice of appeal is essential to our jurisdiction on appeal. Nelson v. Foti, 707 F.2d 170 (5th Cir.1983). The ten day period prescribed by Rule 4(B) for noticing an appeal in a criminal case may be extended by the district court upon a finding of excusable negiect. See United States v. Scott, 672 F.2d 454 (5th Cir.1982). We presume neither the presence nor absence of excusable neglect but defer to the district court for this determination.

Remanded for a determination whether the Notice of Appeal should be deemed timely under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b).

REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

, On June 18, 1984, the district court set bond at $1,000,000 cash or corporate surety for Robert Henry Golding who is awaiting trial on four counts of narcotics law violations, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801, 841(a)(1), 846, 848, 952, 963 and one count of making a false statement in an application for a United States passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. The record before us contains a Notice of Appeal filed later than ten days, but less than forty days after the entry of the order appealed from. The notice of appeal in a criminal case must be “filed in the district court within 10 days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed.R.App.P. 4(b);' see Wood v. U.S., 391 F.2d 981, 983 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1968); see generally 3A C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 772 at 160 (2d ed. West 1982). However, Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) allows the district court to grant an additional thirty days with or without motion and notice. The filing of an untimely notice of appeal within the additional thirty-day period is customarily treated by this Court in criminal, cases “as a motion for a determination as to whether excusable neglect entitled a defendant to an extension of time to appeal.” U.S. v. Awalt, 728 F.2d 704, 705 (5th Cir.1984). Golding’s notice was filed within the additional period for excusable neglect.

We are compelled to raise sua sponte the issue of timeliness for a timely notice of appeal is essential to our jurisdiction on appeal. Nelson v. Foti, 707 F.2d 170 (5th Cir.1983). The ten day period prescribed by Rule 4(B) for noticing an appeal in a criminal case may be extended by the district court upon a finding of excusable negiect. See United States v. Scott, 672 F.2d 454 (5th Cir.1982). We presume neither the presence nor absence of excusable neglect but defer to the district court for this determination.

Remanded for a determination whether the Notice of Appeal should be deemed timely under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b).

REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

739 F.2d 183, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-henry-golding-ca5-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack