AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2006, upon consideration of the order of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Doc. 62), remanding this case "for a determination concerning excusable neglect,"*fn1 see FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4) ("Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may . . . extend the time to file a notice of appeal . . . ."); see also In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 401 F.3d 143, 153-54 (3d Cir. 2005) (discussing the factors to be weighed in determining excusable neglect); United States v. Scheiner, 873 F. Supp. 927, 932 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (same), and defendant's motion of excusable neglect and good cause (Doc. 65), and it appearing that defendant filed the notice of appeal within the thirty-day extension period, see United States v. Richmond, 120 F.3d 434, 436 (3d Cir. 1997) ("We have held that district courts retain the authority to grant the appealing party a Rule 4(b) extension . . . so long as the appealing party filed the notice of appeal within the 30-day extension period."), and the court finding that defendant has demonstrated excusable neglect in that the length of defendant's delay will not negatively impact the judicial proceedings or prejudice the government, see In re Diet Drugs, 401 F.3d at 153 n.20 (identifying "length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings" and "danger of prejudice" as factors), and that defendant acted in good faith because health issues prevented her from timely filing an appeal (see Doc. 65),*fn2 see id. (identifying "reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith" as a factor), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion of excusable neglect and good cause (Doc. 65), CONSTRUED as a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal, is GRANTED as so construed. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4).