[UNPUBLISHED]

In this direct criminal appeal, court-appointed counsel for Ronda Jo Due has filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw and a *544 brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Due pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge and was sentenced to 60 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. The district court 1 entered judgment on May 12, 2006. Due’s pro se notice of appeal, dated May 30 and postmarked June 1, was received by the district court on June 2. Even if the notice of appeal is deemed filed on May 30, it was not filed within ten days of entry of judgment and is therefore untimely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). A district court may, however, grant a defendant an additional 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion is held in abeyance and the case is remanded to the district court to determine whether the time for filing a notice of appeal should be extended under Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4). See United States v. Austin, 217 F.3d 595, 597 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v. Petty, 82 F.3d 809, 810 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Upon making that determination, the district court shall promptly return the case to this court for dismissal or further proceedings, as may be appropriate.