Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03100/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hugo Chavez-Cadenas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HUGO CHAVEZ-CADENAS, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-3100

(D.C. No. 2:09-CR-20005-KHV-10)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Defendant Hugo Chavez-Cadenas appeals the district court’s February 11, 2015 

order granting in part his motion to reduce his prison sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c). The government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the notice of 

appeal was not filed timely. The defendant filed a response opposing the government’s 

motion. Upon consideration, the government’s motion is granted, and this appeal is 

dismissed.

A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 14 days after entry of the 

judgment or order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). The timeliness 

requirement of Rule 4(b) is an inflexible claim processing rule. United States v. 

Garduño, 506 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (10th Cir. 2007). The time limitation in Rule 4(b) 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 18, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3100 Document: 01019432139 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 1 
2

applies to appeals of orders disposing of motions filed pursuant to § 3582(c). United 

States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir. 2011). 

In this case, the district court’s order denying the defendant's § 3582(c) motion 

was entered on February 11, 2015. The notice of appeal from that order should have 

been filed by February 25, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on April 20, 2015, 

nearly two months after the deadline expired.

The government has filed a motion correctly arguing that the notice of appeal was 

untimely filed. The defendant’s response opposing the motion is unpersuasive. Although 

the defendant asks this court to extend the time to appeal, only the district court has 

authority to grant that relief. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Accordingly, the government’s 

motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744 

(10th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he time bar in Rule 4(b) must be enforced by this court when 

properly invoked by the government.” (citing Garduño, 506 F.3d at 1290-91)).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-3100 Document: 01019432139 Date Filed: 05/18/2015 Page: 2