Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cr-00321/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cr-00321-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anastacio Guzman-Martinez
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ANASTACIO GUZMAN-MARTINEZ, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1:07-CR-0321 AWI

ORDER AMENDING JULY 17, 2008

ORDER DENYING ANY REQUEST

THAT THE TIME FOR FILING A

NOTICE OF APPEAL BE EXTENDED

ORDER DENYING ANY REQUEST

THAT THE TIME FOR FILING A

NOTICE OF APPEAL BE EXTENDED

On April 2, 2008, the court entered judgment pursuant to Defendant’s guilty plea. On

May 9, 2008, Defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal. On June 13, 2008, the Ninth Circuit

held the appeal in abeyance and remanded the action to this court for the limited purpose of

permitting this court to provide Defendant notice and an opportunity to request that the time for

filing the notice of appeal be extended. On June 23, 2008, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s order,

the court provided Defendant with notice that the court could extend the time to file a notice of

appeal for a period not to exceed thirty days upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause. 

See Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(4). The court gave Defendant leave to file a motion requesting the court

extend the time to file an appeal within ten days. When over ten days passed, on July 17, 2008,

the court issued on order declining to extend the time within which Defendant may file a notice

of appeal.

Case 1:07-cr-00321-AWI Document 30 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

A review of the court’s docket reveals that on July 16, 2008, Defendant’s appointed

Counsel filed a response to the court’s June 23, 2008 order. In light of the court’s failure to

address Defendant’s Counsel’s response earlier, the court hereby amends its July 17, 2008 order

to include a consideration of Counsel’s response. 

The court has reviewed Counsel’s response, and finds Counsel’s response does not

change the result of the July 17, 2008 order. In the response, Counsel states that as part of the

plea agreement, Defendant waived the right to appeal. After sentencing, Counsel sent Defendant

a copy of the judgment. When Defendant called Counsel, Counsel sent him a second copy of the

judgment. While Counsel does not remember the precise discussion over the phone, Counsel

believes she told Defendant that the time to file an appeal had passed. Counsel sent Defendant a

copy of the court’s June 23, 2008 order at Defendant’s current place of incarceration because the

address he provided to the court is a residence and not where Defendant is incarcerated. 

Counsel states in her response that Defendant has not contacted counsel. Counsel states that she

does not know the exact reason why Defendant filed a late notice of appeal, but notes that the

notice was filed soon after she sent Defendant the second copy of the judgment. Counsel states

that the Defendant’s pro se notice of appeal was a surprise to her. 

The court finds that nothing in Counsel’s July 16, 2008 response meets the standard for

continuing the time to file an appeal. Counsel does not provide the court with excusable neglect

or good cause to extend the time to file an appeal. In fact, it appears Counsel and Defendant

have not discussed extending the time to file an appeal. Defendant has been provided with the

orders concerning extending time to file an appeal, and Defendant has not responded to Counsel

or directly to the court. Thus, the court cannot find that the standard for extending the time to

file an appeal has been met. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The July 17, 2008 order is AMENDED to include consideration of Defendant’s

Counsel’s response;

Case 1:07-cr-00321-AWI Document 30 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

2. To the extent Defendant has requested an extension of time within which

Defendant may file a notice of appeal, this request is DENIED because no

excusable neglect or good cause have been shown; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve copies of this order on:

Anastacio Guzman-Martinez

13665 ADA St.

Armona, CA 93202

Ann Hardgrove Voris 

Federal Defender 

2300 Tulare Street 

Suite 330 

Fresno, CA 93721 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner

Reference to Case 08-10216

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cr-00321-AWI Document 30 Filed 08/19/08 Page 3 of 3