United States v. Mario Trejo-Rubio

668 F. App'x 628

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 19, 2016
• Docket: 16-50099 Summary Calendar
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment in this case was entered on November 9, 2015, but the notice of appeal was not filed until January 21, 2016. The district court thereafter ordered that the notice of appeal be stricken as untimely and that Mario Trejo-Rubio’s motion for in forma pauperis appeal be denied. Before this court, the attorney originally appointed to represent Trejo-Rubio moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Trejo-Rubio has not filed a response.

Because the district court enforced the time limitations of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), Trejo-Rubio is not entitled to have his untimeliness disregarded. See United States v. Acosta-Mosqueda, No. 15-41725, 654 Fed.Appx. 186, 2016 WL 3345282 * 1 (5th Cir. Jun. 15, 2016) (unpublished) (because the district court did not err in enforcing the time limitations of the applicable rule “this court may not reverse its decision to do so”); United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.