Background
Olamide Olatayo Bello was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering under the United States Code. He received a sentence of two hundred ninety-three months imprisonment and three years supervised release. The district court ordered restitution but deferred the amount. After an initial appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute, an amended judgment imposing over three million five hundred sixty-seven thousand dollars in restitution was entered on October twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty-five. Bello filed his notice of appeal on November twenty-sixth, two thousand twenty-five, which was twenty-nine days later.
The court’s reasoning
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure four point b requires a notice of appeal in a criminal case to be filed within fourteen days after judgment entry. Because Bello filed twenty-nine days later, the appeal from the amended judgment is untimely. However, the district court may extend the time for excusable neglect or good cause. The district court denied Bello’s motion to accept the late notice without making findings on whether excusable neglect existed.
We therefore REMAND and order the district court to determine whether excusable neglect or good cause justify extending Bello’s time to file a notice of appeal from the amended judgment.
United States v. Rodriguez, 308 F. App’x 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2009)
What it means going forward
District courts must articulate findings regarding excusable neglect or good cause when ruling on motions to extend the time to file a notice of appeal in criminal cases.