Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40168/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40168-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario De Leon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40168

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO DE LEON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-312-1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario De Leon has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). De Leon has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein.

* 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

March 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-40168 Document: 00515332446 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2020
No. 19-40168

2

De Leon’s notice of appeal was filed more than 14 days after the entry of 

his criminal judgment and was therefore untimely under Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A). See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A). He moved for 

an extension of time to appeal pursuant to Rule 4(b)(4), but the district court

denied the motion on the ground that there was not good cause or excusable 

neglect warranting an extension. In light of the district court’s enforcement of 

the time limitations in Rule 4(b), the untimeliness of De Leon’s notice of appeal 

may not be disregarded. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 

(5th Cir. 2006).

Based on our review of the record, there is no nonfrivolous issue for 

appeal with respect to De Leon’s criminal judgment or the district court’s order 

denying an extension of time to appeal. The instant appeal is without arguable 

merit. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the 

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Case: 19-40168 Document: 00515332446 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2020