
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence GIRTLEY, also known as Pee Wee, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-30345
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 14, 2007.
    
      Michael Monroe Simpson, William P. Gibbens, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lawrence Girtley, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
    Walter Keith Hurtt, Jr., Law Offices of W. Keith Hurtt, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Court-appointed counsel for Lawrence Girtley has filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Girtley was convicted following a guilty plea of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride and 50 grams or more of cocaine base and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment.

Girtley had 10 days from the entry of the December 16, 2004, judgment to file a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Girtley’s pro se notice of appeal was untimely. See id. A district court may 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). Girtley’s notice of appeal, which was filed within this 30-day period, sufficed as a motion for a finding on excusable neglect or good cause. See United States v. Golding, 739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir.1984).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion is held in abeyance and the case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of a finding under Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4). Id. Upon making the finding, the district court shall promptly return the case to this court for dismissal or further proceedings, as may be appropriate. We retain jurisdiction over the appeal except for the purposes of the limited remand.

LIMITED REMAND; MOTION HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING REMAND. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     