USCA11 Case: 20-13708 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-13708 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ERIC RAYONN ROWLS, a.k.a. "E"., a.k.a. Eric Rannon Rowls,

Defendant-Appellant. USCA11 Case: 20-13708 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 20-13708

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00016-RV-MAF-1 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Eric Rowls appeals pro se the denial of his motion to recon- sider the denial of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The United States asks that we dismiss Rowls’s appeal for failure to file timely his notice of appeal. We treat Rowls’s notice of appeal dated September 14, 2020, as a motion for an extension of time and remand for the limited purpose of having the district court make a finding about good cause or excusable ne- glect. A defendant must file a notice of appeal within 14 days of the entry of judgment or the order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i); see United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[A] § 3582(c)(2) motion is not a civil post-conviction action, but rather a continuation of a criminal case.”). This rule is not ju- risdictional, so the government must either object to an untimely notice or forfeit its objection. United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court may extend the period an USCA11 Case: 20-13708 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Page: 3 of 4

20-13708 Opinion of the Court 3

additional 30 days “[u]pon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). A motion for reconsider filed in a criminal case can toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. United States v. Vicaria, 963 F.2d 1412, 1413–14 (11th Cir. 1992). The motion tolls the deadline when filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment. Id. at 1414. The time to file the notice of appeal “begins to run anew following disposi- tion of the motion.” Id. We remand for the limited purpose of having the district court determine whether an extension based on good cause or ex- cusable neglect is warranted. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The dis- trict court denied Rowls’s motion for compassionate release on July 10, 2020. Eleven days later, on July 21, 2020, Rowls filed by email a motion “asking for the [district] court to alter or amend [its] judgment.” Although Rowls could not rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) in his criminal case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Fair, 326 F.3d at 1318, we construe his motion liberally as a motion for reconsideration, Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). That motion tolled the deadline to appeal until its denial on August 4, 2020. See Vicaria, 963 F.2d at 1414. Rowls asked “for the notice of appeal to be filed” in a letter he dated as Septem- ber 14, 2020. Because Rowls filed his late notice before expiration of the additional 30-day period to move for an extension of time in which to appeal, we remand for the district court to make a finding whether good cause or excusable neglect exists to justify an USCA11 Case: 20-13708 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 20-13708

extension. See United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1317–18 (11th Cir. 1983). REMANDED.