TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Woodrow Tarrant

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Woodrow TARRANT, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Tarrant, 158 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 1998)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 21, 1998
Docket
No. 96-4394
Judges
Kennedy, Ryan, Borman
Citations
158 F.3d 94641 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 13441998 WL 7295221998 U.S. App. LEXIS 26775

Opinion — Ryan

OPINION RYAN, Circuit Judge.

The defendant Woodrow Tarrant pleaded guilty to certain narcoties-trafficking and firearm offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. After the time for filing a claim of appeal had expired, Tarrant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. The district court denied the motion on the ground that it was without jurisdiction *947 to grant the requested relief. On appeal, Tarrant claims the district court erred, but we think it did not and, therefore, we shall affirm the district court’s judgment.

I.

On August 1, 1996, Tarrant was sentenced to prison following conviction for two narcotics-traffieking offenses and one firearm offense and advised that he had 10 days following entry of the judgment to file a notice of appeal. The judgment was entered on August 5, 1996. On September 25, 1996, Tar-rant’s counsel notified the district court that he received a letter from Tarrant dáted September 6,1996, expressing a desire to appeal. On September 26, 1996 (52 days after the entry of judgment), Tarrant filed a notice of appeal. Apparently recognizing that his notice of appeal was untimely, on November 25, 1996, Tarrant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, which the district court denied.

II.

Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states that in a criminal case, a defendant must file a notice of appeal within 10 days after the entry of the judgment. The rule further states that “[u]pon a showing of excusable neglect, the district court may ... extend the time for filing a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed.” Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4). Accordingly, a district court has the discretion to consider a motion to extend the time for appeal beyond the 10-day deadline if and only if it is filed within 30 days after the 10-day deadline, or 40 days from the date of the entry of judgment.

See United States v. Hoye, 548 F.2d 1271, 1273 (6th Cir.1977).

Here, the earliest indication received by the district court that the defendant wished to appeal was the letter dated September 25, 1996, which was 11 days beyond the 40-day deadline and 51 days after the entry of judgment. Regardless of whether Tarrant could show excusable neglect for failing to file earlier, the district court lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal because Tarrant did not file his motion within the 40-day deadline, III.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1999: 22000: 22002: 12006: 22008: 119992026peak 1999 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Nathan Dotz455 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2006)
  2. Brown v. People49 V.I. 378 (2008)
  3. United States v. Phillips44 F. App'x 353 (10th Cir. 2002)
  4. United States v. Nathan Dotz446 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2006)
  5. United States v. BerrillNo. 98-4330 (4th Cir. May 20, 1999)
  6. United States v. Charlie EvansNo. 98-4029 (4th Cir. July 23, 1999)

Most recent

  1. Brown v. People49 V.I. 378 (2008)
  2. United States v. Nathan Dotz455 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2006)
  3. United States v. Nathan Dotz446 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2006)
  4. United States v. Phillips44 F. App'x 353 (10th Cir. 2002)
  5. United States v. TisdaleNo. 00-4398 (4th Cir. Nov. 16, 2000)
  6. United States v. GaylesNo. 00-4109 (4th Cir. Aug. 8, 2000)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Hoye, 548 F.2d 1271 (6th Cir. 1977) 66

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list