United States v. Jerome Reed
678 F. App'x 457
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Reed, a convicted felon, was observed picking up a handgun in a Quik Trip; an off-duty deputy searched and found a 9 mm pistol and arrested him after records showed prior felonies.
- Reed pled guilty under a binding plea agreement that called for 72 months, but the district court rejected the agreement; Reed withdrew and later pled guilty without an agreement.
- At sentencing the court calculated a Guidelines range of 70–87 months and varied upward to 108 months based on Reed’s nine prior felonies and other factors.
- Judgment was entered October 2, 2015. Reed filed a pro se notice of appeal and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on February 22, 2016—over three months after the 14-day deadline.
- Reed claimed his trial counsel told him counsel would file the appeal; appellate counsel reviewed and could not confirm such advice and suggested Reed might have had an impression about counsel filing the appeal.
- The government moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely; Reed did not respond to that motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) | Reed contends (through implication) counsel promised to file an appeal and thus his late filing resulted from counsel’s conduct | Government argues the notice was filed well after the 14‑day deadline and no extension was sought from the district court | Appeal dismissed as untimely; Rule 4(b) deadlines are inflexible and government’s objection requires dismissal |
| Excusable neglect based on counsel’s alleged promise | Reed (via appellate counsel’s filing) suggested a mistaken belief that plea counsel would file the appeal, implying excusable neglect | Government points out Reed never sought a district‑court extension under Rule 4(b)(4); counsel’s statements are insufficient absent a timely extension request | Court deems counsel’s ex post statement irrelevant because Reed did not seek an extension from the district court; dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watson, 623 F.3d 542 (8th Cir.) (Rule 4(b) timeliness requirements are inflexible and support dismissal when government objects)
- Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) (discussing the strict enforcement of the criminal appeal notice deadline)
- United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir.) (government’s timely objection to an untimely appeal supports dismissal)