Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20258/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20258-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Luis Pena-Garza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20258

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS PENA-GARZA, also known as Jose Luis Pena, also known as Jose 

Luis Pena-Garcia, also known as Gabriel Artemio Garza, also known as Jose 

Louis Pena, also known as Gabriel Garza, also known as Gabriel A. Garza, also 

known as Jose Luis Garza Pena, also known as Jose Luis Pena Garza, 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-585-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Jose Luis Pena-Garza pleaded guilty to an 

indictment charging him with illegal reentry into the United States following 

previous deportation. He was sentenced to a within-guidelines sentence of 25 

months of imprisonment. For the first time on appeal, Pena-Garza asserts that 

 

* 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 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-20258 Document: 00513108592 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2015
No. 14-20258

2

the district court plainly erred in determining his criminal history score by 

assessing points for a 2011 intoxication assault conviction. The government 

contends that Pena-Garza’s appeal should be dismissed because his notice of 

appeal was untimely.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A)’s time limit for filing a 

timely notice of appeal “is mandatory, but not jurisdictional, because it does 

not derive from a statute,” and may be waived. United States v. Martinez, 496 

F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2007) (following reasoning in Bowles v. Russell, 551 

U.S. 205, 211-13 (2007)). There is no waiver in the instant case. Moreover, a 

defendant does not have a right to have the untimeliness of his notice of appeal 

disregarded. United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Given these circumstances, the instant appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous 

based on the untimeliness of the notice of appeal. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 14-20258 Document: 00513108592 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2015