Opinion
12-20015-05-JWL
11-16-2022
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Tamara Ledom, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
John W. Lungstrum, United States District Judge.
On October 28, 2022, this court denied defendant Tamara Ledom's motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Defendant, through retained counsel, now moves for an extension of time to appeal the court's October 28, 2022 memorandum and order denying compassionate release. The motion is dismissed without prejudice to refiling upon a showing of good cause or excusable neglect.
A motion for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1) is part of the criminal proceeding, so an appeal from a decision on such a motion comes under the rules governing appeals in criminal cases. See United States v. Heath, 846 Fed.Appx. 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2021). Those rules provide that a defendant in a criminal case has 14 days from entry of an order to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Thus, defendant's notice of appeal had to be filed by November 11, 2022 or, more accurately, by November 14, 2022 because November 11, 2022 was a legal holiday. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C) (“[I]f the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”). Defendant's motion for extension was filed two days after the deadline, on November 16, 2022.
Nonetheless, the court, even after the time has expired, can extend the initial 14-day period but “its authority to do so is strictly limited.” United States v. Verdin-Garcia, 707 Fed.Appx. 559 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2017). “Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause,” the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal for only an additional 30 days beyond the expiration of the initial 14-day period. Id. (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4)). Thus, the court can extend the time for defendant to file her notice of appeal to no later than December 15, 2022 upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. But defendant has demonstrated neither excusable neglect nor good cause in her motion for an extension of time. She asserts only that her notice of appeal was not filed due to “unavoidable scheduling conflicts and circumstances.” The motion, then, is denied without prejudice to refiling in the event that defendant is able to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause for her delay.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant's motion for an extension of time to appeal the court's October 28, 2022 memorandum and order (doc. 507) is denied without prejudice to refiling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.