Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01324/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01324-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn La Velle Rollins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v.

SHAWN LA VELLE ROLLINS, a/k/a 

Inch, a/k/a Critical, a/k/a Smurf, a/k/a Sean 

Lavelle Rollins, a/k/a G Rock, a/k/a 

Michael Williams, a/k/a Shawn Lavelle 

Rollios, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-1324

(D.C. No. 1:06-CR-00240-REB-1)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Defendant Shawn La Velle Rollins appeals the district court’s judgment of 

conviction and sentence. The notice of appeal was filed more than seven years after the 

filing deadline passed, however. As a result, we conclude that this appeal should be 

dismissed as untimely.

Under the rules in effect at the time judgment was entered, a timely notice of 

appeal from the underlying criminal judgment had to be filed within 10 days after entry 

of the judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (amended effective 2010 from 10 days to 

14 days). In this case, the district court’s judgment was entered on February 4, 2008. The 

notice of appeal should have been filed by February 19, 2008. See id. 26(a)(1)(C) 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 8, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1324 Document: 01019486775 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 1 
2

(counting days when weekends and holidays intervene). The notice of appeal was not 

filed until August 31, 2015, long after the 10-day filing deadline passed.

The timeliness requirement of Rule 4(b)(1)(A) is an inflexible claim processing 

rule rather than a jurisdictional limitation. United States v. Garduño, 506 F.3d 1287, 

1290-91 (10th Cir. 2007). Although the court is not required to dismiss a late-filed 

criminal appeal unless the government raises the issue first, the court is not prohibited 

from dismissing a late-filed criminal appeal sua sponte. The court may dismiss an 

untimely criminal appeal on its own when judicial or administrative efficiencies are 

implicated and the delay in taking the appeal was “inordinate.” United States v. Mitchell, 

518 F.3d 740, 750 (10th Cir. 2008). We find that raising untimeliness sua sponte is 

appropriate here. We know of no provision in the appellate rules or otherwise that could 

salvage such an untimely appeal.

Based on the foregoing, this appeal is dismissed as untimely.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1324 Document: 01019486775 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 2