Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30080/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Armando Perdomo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30080

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

OSCAR ARMANDO PERDOMO, also known as Oscar Perdomo, also known 

as Pacheco Perdomo, also known as Gurgules Perdomo, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:13-CR-127-22

Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Oscar Armando Perdomo appeals his conviction by guilty plea of 

aggravated identity theft, mail fraud, and a related conspiracy count, arguing 

that the district court failed to conduct a sufficient colloquy before accepting 

his plea, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b). He also 

tenders as an issue on appeal the reasonableness of the within-Guidelines 

 * 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

October 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30080 Document: 00513229854 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/13/2015
No. 15-30080

2

sentence imposed, although he affirmatively argues that the sentence was 

reasonable. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. 

A criminal defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within fourteen 

days of the entry of judgment or the government’s own notice of appeal. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Although this time limit is not jurisdictional, it is 

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

Here, final judgment was entered on August 27, 2014. Perdomo concedes that 

his notice of appeal, filed on January 26, 2015, was over four months late. But 

he submits that this court might be able to consider his appeal because of 

actions the district court took several weeks after the filing of his tardy notice 

of appeal. Specifically, he notes that the district court (1) dismissed Perdomo’s 

habeas petition citing the pendency of his direct appeal and (2) appointed new 

counsel for the pendency of the appeal when Perdomo’s prior counsel withdrew. 

“Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court 

may—before or after the time has expired, with or without motion and notice—

extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from 

the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by” Rule 4(b). Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b)(4) (emphasis added). This court has found a district court’s appointment 

of appellate counsel to operate as an implied finding of excusable neglect, and 

on that basis considered untimely appeals noticed less than thirty days after 

the deadline imposed by Rule 4(b). See, e.g., United States v. Garcia-Paulin, 

627 F.3d 127, 130 n.1 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Lister, 53 F.3d 66, 68 

(5th Cir. 1995). But that line of cases does not aid Perdomo because neither 

he nor the district court took any action related to his appeal until well after 

the deadline, extended by thirty days, would have expired. See United States 

v. Ibarra-Olvera, 497 F. App’x 423, 424 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. 

Dominguez-Garcia, 325 F. App’x 397, 398 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED as untimely. 

 Case: 15-30080 Document: 00513229854 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/13/2015