Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06066/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Marco Antonio Vega
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCO ANTONIO VEGA, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-6066

(D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00315-F-1)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Appellant, proceeding pro se, appeals the judgment entered in his criminal case on 

September 28, 2015. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on March 7, 2016. Although 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was dated September 27, 2015, a notice of appeal is not 

considered filed until received by the district court clerk. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2); Fed. 

R. App. P. 25(a)(2). Appellant has not established that he is entitled to the benefit of the 

prison mailbox rule. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). Appellant’s response to the court’s show 

cause order asserts that the declaration accompanying his notice of appeal complies with 

28 U.S.C. § 1746 because it “indicat[es] th[e] date of deposit with prison officials, and 

that postage had been pre-paid.” Appellant’s assertion regarding postage is belied by a 

review of the declaration, however. The declaration on the notice of appeal fails to state 

that first-class postage was prepaid. See United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 733, 734 n.1 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 13, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-6066 Document: 01019602207 Date Filed: 04/13/2016 Page: 1 
2

(10th Cir. 1999) (declining to apply the prison mailbox rule because the prisoner’s 

declaration of timely filing did not state that first-class postage had been prepaid). 

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

within 14 days after entry of the judgment being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). 

The timely filing of a notice of appeal by the defendant is an inflexible claim-processing 

rule that may be forfeited if not properly raised by the government. United States v. 

Garduño, 506 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (10th Cir. 2007). However, because Rule 4(b) 

implicates important judicial interests beyond those of the parties, the court may raise the 

time bar sua sponte in certain circumstances. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 750 

(10th Cir. 2008). This power is limited and should not be invoked unless judicial 

resources and administration are implicated and the delay has been inordinate. Id.

Under the circumstances of this case, dismissal of this appeal as untimely is 

appropriate. Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed more than five months after judgment was 

entered, is inordinately late. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-6066 Document: 01019602207 Date Filed: 04/13/2016 Page: 2