USA v. King

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
JONATHAN KING,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 22-cr-64-JJM-PAS
ORDER
On October 14, 2025, this Court entered an order in which it denied Defendant
Jonathan 	King’s 	motion 	for 	a 	reduction 	in 	his 	sentence 	under 	18 	U.S.C. 	§
3582(c)(1)(A)(i). ECF No. 86. Then, on November 18, 2025, the Court entered another
order, denying Mr. King’s motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 89.
Mr. King filed a notice of appeal on December 19, 2025, seeking to appeal both
of the Court’s orders. ECF No. 90. Subsequently, the First Circuit entered an order,
observing that “it appears that the notice of appeal is late.”
	United States v. King,
No. 26-1001, slip op. at 1 (1st Cir. Feb. 12, 2026).
The First Circuit cited Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
which provides that “[i]n a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed
in the district court within 14 days after … the entry of either the judgment or the
order being appealed.” 	Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). 	The court also noted that a district
court, “upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, may enlarge the time for
filing a notice of appeal filed within the thirty days immediately following that
fourteen-day period.”
King, slip op. at 1 (citing
United States v. Batista, 22 F.3d 492,
Case 1:22-cr-00064-JJM-PAS Document 93 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
493 (2d Cir. 1994)). “The district court does not, though, have the authority to extend
the time to appeal beyond that point.”
Id. (citing Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1)).
The First Circuit found that, as to this Court’s October 14th order, Mr. King
likely filed his notice of appeal of that order outside of the thirty days immediately
following the fourteen-day period to appeal.
Id. However, the Court’s November 18th
order is a different story. 	The First Circuit transmitted Mr. King’s notice of appeal
back to this Court “for a ruling whether the district court will enlarge the time for
filing an appeal and will consider this notice of appeal timely filed as to the November
18 order.”
King, slip op. at 1-2.
The Court finds Mr. King’s notice of appeal to be timely filed within the 30-day
window permitted by Rule 4(b)(4). 	Though Mr. King did not submit his notice of
appeal of the Court’s order on his motion for reconsideration within the fourteen-day
period to appeal, he did file the notice in the 30 days immediately following that 14-
day period. 1
	See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) (providing that a district court may “extend
the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration
of the [14-day period]”).
The Court must also consider whether Mr. King’s delay in filing his notice of
appeal was due to inexcusable neglect. 	The finding of whether “excusable neglect”
exists “is at bottom an equitable one, taking into account all of the relevant
1 For those doing the math in their heads, 14 days after the Court’s issuance of
its November 18, 2025 order is December 2, 2025. 	Then, 30 days immediately
following that date is January 1, 2026. The filing of Mr. King’s notice of appeal falls
within the appropriate window.
Case 1:22-cr-00064-JJM-PAS Document 93 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.”
Virella-Nieves v. Briggs & Stratton
Corp., 53 F.3d 451, 454 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick
Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). 	In
Pioneer, the Supreme Court laid
out the following non-exhaustive factors to consider in making such a finding: (1) “the
danger of prejudice to the [opposing party]”; (2) “the length of the delay and its
potential impact on judicial proceedings”; (3) “the reason for the delay, including
whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant”; and (4) “whether the
movant acted in good faith.”
Tubens v. Doe, 976 F.3d 101, 105 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting
Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395).
Here, the Court finds that Mr. King’s delay was due to excusable neglect. First,
the length of Mr. King’s 17-day delay from the lapse of Rule 4(b)’s deadline was
relatively brief.
	Cf. United States v. González-Carro, No. 11-cr-45-14(RAM), 2021
WL 1914146, at *2 (D.P.R. May 12, 2021) (finding eight-day delay after “Fed. R. App.
4(b) deadline elapsed but well within the 30-day extension that Fed. R. 4(b)(4)
allows”);
United States v. Young, No. 2:15-cr-335-RDP-TFM-10, 2017 WL 6337462,
at *1 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 18, 2017) (holding that, even though an inmate’s motion had
been docketed a day after the 30-day deadline, his motion was timely because it was
signed and dated prior to the 30-day term).
Second, Mr. King is a pro-se litigant who is currently in prison. He ought to be
afforded a degree of flexibility given that he has a limited ability to monitor the
processing of his appeal.
	See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271 (explaining that a
“
pro se prisoner has no choice but to entrust the forwarding of his notice of appeal to
Case 1:22-cr-00064-JJM-PAS Document 93 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
prison authorities whom he cannot control or supervise and who may have every
incentive to delay”);
see also Oliver v. Comm’r of Mass. Dep’t of Corr., 30 F.3d 270,
272 (1st Cir. 1994).
Finally, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Government
would be prejudiced by the enlarging of the time for Mr. King to file his notice of
appeal. 	Similarly, there is no reason to believe that Mr. King acted in bad faith in
filing a late notice.
Accordingly, the Court will enlarge the time to appeal and retroactively deems
Mr. King’s December 19, 2025 notice of appeal as to the November 18 order to be
timely filed.
The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this order to the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and to Mr. King at:
Jonathan Richard King
FCI Danbury
33 ½ Pembroke Road
Danbury, CT 06811
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
DATE: 18 February 2026
Case 1:22-cr-00064-JJM-PAS Document 93 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>