United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
W. DeGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
Patrick Lomas has appealed the Court's February 20, 2018,
order denying his motion to reduce his sentence. (Doc. 244.)
The appeal deadline was March 6, 2018. See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Defendant's appeal was filed on March
26, 2018. (Doc. 248.) It was thus untimely.
Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4) provides in relevant
part: “Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good
cause, the district court may . . .extend the time to file a
notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the
expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule
4(b).” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). On June 21, 2018, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded
Defendant's appeal “for a determination whether the
untimely filing of the notice of appeal was due to excusable
neglect or good cause” under Rule 4(b)(4).
October 5, 2018, this Court gave the Defendant twenty-one
days to provide what information he could regarding his
failure to file the notice of appeal timely. (Doc. 256.) The
Court also gave the Government twenty-one days to respond.
October 15, 2018, Defendant submitted a sworn letter stating
that he received the order on March 16, 2018-after the appeal
deadline. Defendant also submitted an unsworn letter from his
case agent stating that the letter was received on March 16,
Government responded by opposing the Defendant's
requested extension. (Doc. 264.) The Government highlights
the extensive procedural history of this case and the
Defendant's many frivolous pleadings and appeals, all of
which, the Government argues, reflects a lack of good faith.
Court's decision on this issue is reviewed under the
abuse of discretion standard. See Midwest
Emp'rs Cas. Co. v. Williams, 161 F.3d 877, 879 (5th
Cir. 1998) (citing Latham v. Wells Fargo
Bank, 987 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir. 1993)). The Fifth Circuit
has described the excusable neglect standard as follows:
[T]he determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking
account all of the relevant circumstances surrounding the
party's omission. These include . . . the danger of
prejudice . . ., the length of the delay and its potential
impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay,
including whether it was within the reasonable control of the
movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.
Midwest 161 F.3d at 879.
Federal Rule of Criminal ...