Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03268/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03268-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Arellano Padilla
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUAN ARELLANO PADILLA, a/k/a 

Antonio Rodriguez, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-3268

(D.C. No. 6:11-CR-10256-EFM-10)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, GORSUCH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Defendant Juan Arellano Padilla appeals the district court’s September 15, 2015 

order denying his motion seeking good time credit toward his federal sentence. The 

government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the notice of appeal was not 

filed timely. The appellant filed a response opposing the government’s motion. Upon 

consideration, the government’s motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed.

A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 14 days after entry of the 

judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). The timeliness requirement of Rule 4(b) is an 

inflexible claim processing rule. United States v. Garduño, 506 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (10th 

Cir. 2007). The time limitation in Rule 4(b) applies to appeals of post-conviction orders. 

See generally United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir. 2011). 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 2, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3268 Document: 01019564808 Date Filed: 02/02/2016 Page: 1 
2

In this case, the district court’s order was entered on its docket on September 15, 

2015. The notice of appeal should have been filed on or before September 29, 2015. The 

notice of appeal was filed on October 30, 2015, after the deadline expired.

The government has filed a motion in this court correctly arguing that the notice of 

appeal was untimely filed. The appellant’s response opposing the motion to dismiss does 

not persuade us otherwise. The appellant asks this court to overlook the lateness of the 

notice of appeal because of the late receipt of the district court’s order and his language 

difficulties, but only the district court has authority to grant relief from an untimely notice 

of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The appellant never asked the district court for relief. 

Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See United 

States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he time bar in Rule 4(b) must 

be enforced by this court when properly invoked by the government.” (citing Garduño, 

506 F.3d at 1290-91)).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-3268 Document: 01019564808 Date Filed: 02/02/2016 Page: 2