Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-40623/USCOURTS-ca5-13-40623-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leo Patrick Collins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40623

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEO PATRICK COLLINS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:10-CR-1-1

Before KING, DAVIS, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leo Patrick Collins, federal prisoner # 15509-078, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion to compel specific performance of the plea 

agreement. In his motion, he asked the district court to compel the 

Government to file a motion to reduce his sentence as provided in Rule 35(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Government argues 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

January 6, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40623 Document: 00512490278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-40623

Collins’s appeal should be dismissed because Collins failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal.

Collins’s notice of appeal was filed after the expiration of the time for 

filing a timely notice of appeal and the time during which the district court 

could have extended the time for filing a notice of appeal. See FED. R. APP.

P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (b)(4). Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion for 

summary dismissal and DISMISS Collins’s appeal as untimely filed. See 

Burnley v. City of San Antonio, 470 F.3d 189, 192 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006).

The Government’s alternative motions for summary affirmance or for an 

extension of time to file an appellate brief are DENIED. Collins’s motion for 

leave to amend his reply brief is GRANTED; his motions for a three-point 

reduction for his substantial assistance and to place our decision under seal 

are DENIED.

2

 Case: 13-40623 Document: 00512490278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014