Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06094/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06094-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Candelario Miramontes-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CANDELARIO MIRAMONTESHERNANDEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-6094

(D.C. No. 5:11-CR-00024-C-1)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

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

_________________________________

Defendant Candelario Miramontes-Hernandez appeals the district court’s final 

judgment and commitment. 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. 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 notice of appeal identifies “the judgment of conviction and 

sentence imposed on May 03, 2011” as the subject of the appeal. The district court 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 23, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-6094 Document: 01019448798 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 Page: 1 
2

docket shows that judgment was actually entered August 4, 2011. Under Rule 4(b), the 

deadline to appeal from the final judgment was August 18, 2011. The notice of appeal 

was filed on May 12, 2015, more than three years and eight months after the filing 

deadline expired.

The district court entered a more recent order denying the defendant’s motion for a 

reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). This order was entered April 21, 

2015. But even if we were to construe the defendant’s appeal as including the district 

court’s April 21, 2015 order, the notice of appeal is untimely as to that order as well. The 

time limitation in Rule 4(b) 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). 

As noted, the district court’s order was entered on the district court docket on April 21, 

2015. The notice of appeal should have been filed on or before May 5, 2015, but was not 

filed until May 12, 2015. Thus, the notice of appeal is late as to this order, too.

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

untimely as to both the final judgment and the order denying relief under § 3582(c). The 

defendant’s response opposing the motion to dismiss is not persuasive and offers no 

authority by which this court could grant relief. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) (district 

court may extend time to appeal in criminal case). 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)).

Appellate Case: 15-6094 Document: 01019448798 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 Page: 2 
3

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-6094 Document: 01019448798 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 Page: 3