OPINION

Raymond Jerome Francis seeks to appeal the amended criminal judgment reimposing the original terms of imprisonment and supervised release relating to his drug and firearms convictions (No. 02-4292). He also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000) (No. 02-4450). In No. 02-4292, the Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and Francis has moved to summarily vacate the district court’s order, or, in the alternative, to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari in another case. In No. 02-4450, we must determine sua sponte whether Francis timely filed his notice of appeal.

With regard to No. 02-4292, the district court’s order amending the criminal judgment to reimpose Francis’s original sentence arose in the context of a § 2255 proceeding. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). Specifically, pursuant to a § 2255 motion the district court granted Francis partial relief from his sentence. We vacated and remanded for reimposition of the original sentence, and Francis now seeks to raise issues related to the reimposed sentence. Under those circumstances, a party has sixty days in which to note a timely appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a). In No. 02-4292, the district court entered the amended criminal judgment on March 6, 2002, see Fed. R.App.

P. 4(b)(6). Francis dated the notice of appeal March 27. The envelope was postmarked on April 1, and the notice of appeal was filed in the district court on April *856 4, 2002. The notice of appeal was therefore timely, and the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is accordingly denied. We also deny Francis’s motion to summarily vacate the district court’s order or, in the alternative, to hold this appeal in abeyance.

Turning to Francis’s appeal in No. 02-4450 concerning the denial of his § 3582 motion, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A § 3582 motion is criminal in nature, see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature), and therefore Francis had ten days from the entry of judgment to note a timely appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 4(b)(1)(A). The district court could extend the appeal period under Rule 4(b)(4) upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. See also United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). However, the district court may not extend the appeal period beyond the forty days provided in Rule 4(b). Fed. R.App. P. 26(b)(1); see United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 1991).

Here, the district court entered its order denying Francis’ § 3582 motion on April 5, 2002. The ten-day appeal and thirty-day excusable neglect periods expired on May 15, 2002. Because Francis did not file his notice of appeal until May 29, 2002, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal. See Raynor, 939 F.2d at 196. We therefore dismiss the appeal in No. 02-4450 as untimely.

No. 02-4292 — MOTIONS DENIED.

No. 02-4450 — DISMISSED.