Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Lawrence Umfress

562 F.2d 359

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1977-11-04
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • remanding for applications for extensions

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Lawrence Umfress. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
8 opinions
UNITED STATES v. UMFRESS,562 F.2d 359(5th Cir. 1977)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LAWRENCE UMFRESS,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 77-5236.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 4, 1977.
Frank A. Russell, Fulton, Miss. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

H. M. Ray, U.S. Atty., Alfred E. Moreton, III, John R. Hailman, Asst. U.S. Attys., Oxford, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Before COLEMAN, GODBOLD and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Lawrence Umfress was convicted after a jury trial on two counts relating to the false statement of his gross income on his United States individual income tax returns for the calendar years 1972 and 1973, in violation of26 U.S.C. § 7206. On February 25, 1977, Umfress was sentenced to two terms of eighteen months imprisonment, with the sentences to run consecutively. The prescribed ten day period in which to file a notice of appeal, Rule4(b), F.R.A.P., thus expired on March 7, 1977. Umfress did not file such notice until March 8, 1977.Page 360

[2] The notice of appeal not being timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction. In the interest of justice, however, we remand the case to the District Court to allow Umfress thirty days in which to move for a determination whether, under Rule 4(b), excusable neglect entitles him to an extension of time to appeal. Should this appeal be brought, it may be decided without further briefing or argument.See e. g., United States v. Lewis,5 Cir., 1975,522 F.2d 1367;Cramer v. Wise,5 Cir., 1974,494 F.2d 1185.See, also, United States v. Stolarz,9 Cir., 1976,547 F.2d 108.

[3] REMANDED.Page 361
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; seeIsbell Enterprises, Inc. v. CitizensCasualty Co. of New York et al.,5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩