Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10578/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leo Dillon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10578

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEO DILLON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-295-5

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leo Dillon is charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 

841(b)(1)(A)(vii). He appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion 

for reconsideration of its previous order affirming the magistrate judge’s ruling 

revoking Dillon’s pretrial release and ordering him detained. In its response 

to Dillon’s appeal, the Government moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10578 Document: 00513136043 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2015
No. 15-10578

2

A detention order is a final decision over which we have appellate 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). “In a criminal 

case, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 14 

days after . . . the entry of . . . the order being appealed.” FED. R. APP.

P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Dillon’s notice of appeal was not filed in a timely manner, nor 

was it filed within the permissible extension period of Rule 4(b)(4).

The time limit set forth in Rule 4(b)(1)(A) is mandatory, but it is not 

jurisdictional. United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2007) 

(citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 207-14 (2007)). Although the 

requirements of Rule 4(b)(1)(A) may be waived, see Martinez, 496 F.3d at 388-

89, the Government has not waived the issue in the instant case. Accordingly, 

the Government’s motion is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

 Case: 15-10578 Document: 00513136043 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2015