Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0394-01.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. Josue Daniel JIMENEZ DE LEON, Also Known as Josue Daniel Rodriguez Jimenez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-40064
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 18, 2010.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Josué Daniel Jimenez De Leon, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Josué Jimenez De Leon pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement. Nearly eleven months after entry of judgment, he filed a notice of appeal in which he also requested the appointment of counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Finding that the judgment of conviction and sentence had become unappealable when no notice of appeal was timely filed, the district court denied the request for appointed counsel but granted IFP status.

Jimenez De Leon now moves for appointment of counsel. This court may dismiss an appeal when considering an interlocutory motion if the appeal “is frivolous and entirely without merit.” 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Jimenez De Leon did not file a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence within 10 days after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). His appeal also was noticed beyond the 30-day time limit for extending the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). He is not entitled to have the untimeliness of his notice of appeal disregarded. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir.2006). Because the appeal is without arguable merit, we deny appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has • determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.