Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40087/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Enrique Sanchez-Vasquez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40087

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO ENRIQUE SANCHEZ-VASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1803-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Enrique Sanchez-Vasquez was convicted of illegal reentry into the 

United States and was sentenced to serve 46 months in prison. He did not 

timely notice his appeal from his judgment of conviction. Rather, he filed an 

untimely pro se notice of appeal and averred that counsel had ignored his 

request to timely file a notice of appeal. The district court construed this filing 

 

* 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

November 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40087 Document: 00513276323 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2015
No. 15-40087

2

as a request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and denied it. The 

district court also noted that his notice of appeal was untimely.

Now, Sanchez-Vasquez argues that the district court should have 

construed his untimely pro se notice of appeal as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 

seeking an out-of-time appeal grounded in a claim that counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance by not timely noticing his appeal. He requests that we 

vacate the district court’s IFP order and remand for further proceedings. 

We should always be aware of our jurisdiction and raise this issue on our 

own when necessary. United States v. Villanueva-Diaz, 634 F.3d 844, 848 (5th 

Cir. 2011). “An appeal permitted by law as of right from a district court to a 

court of appeals may be taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district 

court within the time allowed by Rule 4.” FED. R. APP. P. 3(a)(1). Thus, a notice 

of appeal is a mandatory precondition to the exercise of this court’s appellate 

jurisdiction. See id. Because Sanchez-Vasquez filed no notice of appeal from 

the order he is now challenging, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal, 

and it is DISMISSED.

 Case: 15-40087 Document: 00513276323 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2015