Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41268/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41268-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edgar Hernandez-Gomez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41268

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR HERNANDEZ-GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Edgar Hernandez-Gomez (Hernandez) pleaded guilty to possession with 

the intent to distribute heroin. He appeals, arguing that the district court 

erred when it attributed 10 to 30 kilograms of heroin to him for sentencing 

purposes. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as 

untimely. 

In a criminal case, an incarcerated defendant generally has 14 days from 

the entry of the judgment on the docket to file a notice of appeal, or to deposit 

such in his institution’s mail system. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (b)(6), 

(c)(1). Hernandez’s notice of appeal was not filed or submitted in a timely 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41268 Document: 00513144241 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2015
No. 14-41268

2

manner, nor was it filed within the permissible extension period of Rule 

4(b)(4)(B). 

The time limit set forth in Rule 4(b)(1)(A) is mandatory, but it is not 

jurisdictional. United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2007) 

(citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 207-14 (2007)). Thus, the requirements 

of Rule 4(b)(1)(A) may be waived. Hernandez argues that the Government did 

so by waiting until he filed his initial brief to file a motion to dismiss the appeal. 

We conclude that a motion to dismiss filed with or before the Government’s 

first substantive filing (usually, its opening brief) is timely. See United States 

v. Sealed Appellant, 304 F. App’x 282, 284 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, we conclude 

that the Government did not waive the timeliness objection. See id.; Martinez, 

496 F.3d at 389. 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion is GRANTED and the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

 Case: 14-41268 Document: 00513144241 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2015