Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0628-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario TREJO-RUBIO, also known as Mario Trejo, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-50099 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 09/19/2016
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mario Trejo-Rubio, Pro Se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   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 See United States v. Acosta-Mosqueda, No. 15-41725, 654 Fed.Appx. 186, 2016 WL 3345282 * 1 (5th Cir. Jun. 15, 2016) (unpublished) (because the district court did not err in enforcing the time limitations of the applicable rule “this court may not reverse its decision to do so”); United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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.