Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03133/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03133-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guillermo Amparan-Mendoza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GUILLERMO AMPARAN-MENDOZA, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-3133

(D.C. No. 6:14-CR-10163-EFM-1)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before us on the government’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal. The 

government seeks to dismiss this direct criminal appeal, filed by the defendant, Guillermo 

Amparan-Mendoza, on timeliness grounds. Mr. Amparan-Mendoza has not filed a 

response to the motion to dismiss.

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). 

In the instant case, the district court entered judgment against Mr. AmparanMendoza on February 10, 2015, making the notice of appeal due no later than February 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 9, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3133 Document: 01019457173 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 1 
2

24, 2015. Even if the district court had granted the maximum extension of time allowed 

under the rules, the time for filing the notice of appeal would have expired in March 26, 

2015. Mr. Amparan-Mendoza filed his notice of appeal on June 1, 2015, well beyond the 

deadline for filing an appeal.

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 we agree that the notice of appeal was 

untimely, the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. 

Appeal dismissed.

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: 15-3133 Document: 01019457173 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 2