Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04087/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Wayne Cruz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK WAYNE CRUZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-4087

(D.C. No. 1:06-CR-00085-DB-1)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Mark Wayne Cruz seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for a 

sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The United States has filed a Motion 

to Dismiss this appeal on timeliness grounds. Mr. Cruz filed a response to the motion 

arguing that the district court clerk failed to notify him of the denial of his § 3582(c) 

motion and the prison mailroom has no record of any notice from the district court about 

this denial. 

In a criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 14 

days after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). Although the district court may 

grant an extension of time for filing the notice of appeal, this extension may not exceed 

30 days from the original deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b)(4). Unlike the rules for civil appeals, there is no rule allowing the district court to 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 23, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-4087 Document: 01019643988 Date Filed: 06/23/2016 Page: 1 
2

extend or reopen the time to appeal in a criminal case due to lack of notice. Compare

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) with Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).

In this case, the district court entered its order denying Mr. Cruz’s § 3582(c) 

motion on December 31, 2015, making the notice of appeal due no later than January 14, 

2016. Even if the district court had granted the maximum extension of time allowed, the 

district court could not have extended the time to appeal beyond February 16, 2016. Mr. 

Cruz did not file his notice of appeal until May 11, 2016. 

The timely filing of a notice of appeal by the defendant in a criminal case 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). If 

properly raised, however, we must grant relief. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 

744 (10th Cir 2008) (citing Garduño, 506 F.3d at 1290-91). Because the government has 

properly invoked the time bar in Rule 4(b) and Mr. Cruz cannot obtain any relief from the 

filing deadline, the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. To the extent 

Mr. Cruz’s response contains a renewed request for the appointment of counsel, this 

request is denied as moot.

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

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-4087 Document: 01019643988 Date Filed: 06/23/2016 Page: 2