United States v. Ray Frederick, 422 F. App'x 404

Defendant was charged in a 2009 three-count indictment for identity theft, aggravated identity theft, and mail fraud related to using others’ identification to file fraudulent Michigan Homestead Tax Credit applications.
Defendant pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 3 on July 24, 2009, with count 2 dismissed and a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility; plea waived most appeals.
At sentencing (Dec 15, 2009), the court imposed concurrent 72-month sentences above the guidelines and noted a limited appeal right.
Judgment entered between Dec 23–28, 2009 due to holiday delays; defense counsel sent an incorrect deadline notice (Jan 4, 2010) stating the appeal deadline.
Defendant later sought to extend time to appeal (Jan 21, 2010 motion), which the district court denied (Jan 27, 2010); the Government did not oppose the motion, and the circuit affirmed on appeal.
The issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying an extension of time to appeal under excusable neglect/good cause standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly denied extension for excusable neglect.	Freedman (defendant) argues excusable neglect due to holidays and counsel unavailability.	Freedman argues delays were beyond his control and justify extension.	No; denial affirmed; excusable neglect not shown.
Whether Pioneer factors support extension of time to appeal.	Court should consider prejudice, delay length, reason for delay, and good faith.	Delays were due to counsel’s unavailability and judgments timing.	No; factors weighed against extension; district court did not abuse discretion.

United States v. Dotz, 455 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2006) (time to appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; extensions only for excusable neglect/good cause)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc., 507 U.S. 380 (Supreme Court 1993) (balancing factors for excusable neglect)
Stutson v. United States, 516 U.S. 193 (1996) (criminal context suggests similar excusable neglect standards)
Marsh v. Richardson, 873 F.2d 129 (6th Cir. 1989) (extension denied for inadvertence arising from lack of diligence)
Nicholson v. City of Warren, 467 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 2006) (affirming denial of extension where delay not excusable)
United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1986) (excusable neglect shown when appellant did all possible)
Nafziger v. McDermott Int’l, Inc., 467 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2006) (addressing excusable neglect factors in civil context)