Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02103/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02103-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edgardo Martin-Dorame
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDGARDO MARTIN-DORAME, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-2103

(D.C. No. 2:13-CR-00382-JAP-2)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before us on the government’s Motion to Dismiss for Late Filing of 

Notice of Appeal. The government seeks to dismiss this criminal appeal by defendant 

Edgardo Martin-Dorame on timeliness grounds. Counsel for Mr. Martin-Dorame 

concedes that the notice of appeal was untimely.

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 denied Mr. Martin-Dorame’s motion for a 

sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) on May 21, 2015, making the notice 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 13, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2103 Document: 01019475552 Date Filed: 08/13/2015 Page: 1 
2

of appeal due no later than June 4, 2015. Mr. Martin-Dorame filed his notice of appeal 

on July 16, 2015, well beyond the deadline for filing an appeal and even beyond any 

extension of time the district court could have granted.

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. 

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: 15-2103 Document: 01019475552 Date Filed: 08/13/2015 Page: 2