United States v. Pablo Rangel-Rubio

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12530

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PABLO RANGEL-RUBIO,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cr-00030-LGW-BWC-1

____________________

2

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12530

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Upon review of the record and the government’s motion to dismiss, we conclude that this appeal is untimely. Pablo Rangel-Rubio seeks review of the district court’s November 21, 2022 judgment in his criminal case. To timely seek review of that judgment, he needed to file a notice of appeal by December 5, 2022. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). His notice of appeal, deemed filed on July 26, 2023, is therefore untimely. See id.; Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014).

Because the government moves to dismiss the notice of appeal as untimely, we “must apply the time limits of Rule 4(b).” See United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1313‑14 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that we must apply Rule 4(b)’s 14-day time limit when the government objects to an untimely notice of appeal). Additionally, because Rangel-Rubio filed his notice of appeal more than 30 days after the expiration of the 14-day appeal period, he is not eligible for relief under Rule 4(b)(4). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) (providing that, upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal for up to 30 days); United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 1983) (noting that we customarily treat a late notice of appeal, filed within the 30 days during which an extension is permissible, as a motion for extension of time under Rule 4(b)(4) and remand to the district court).

3

23-12530 Opinion of the Court 3

Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.