UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ALFONSO CARRILLO, Defendant - Appellant. No. 15-1294 (D.C. No. 1:15-y-00040-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , MATHESON , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Alfonso Carrillo appeals following the dist rict court’s remand of his criminal case to Colorado state court. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), we affirm.
I Carrillo was charged in Colorado state court with forgery, offering a false instrument, and theft. He filed a notice of removal, which he s ubsequently amended,

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 28, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 claiming that his prosecution was motivated by racial disc rimination. The district court summarily remanded the case to state court on June 24, 2015. Carrillo filed a motion for reconsideration on July 31, 2015. 1 The district cour t denied his motion on August 3, 2015. Carillo then filed a no tice of appeal of bot h orders, which he certified was deposited in the prison mail system on August 14, 2015.
II An order remanding a case to state court is generally not revi ewable on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). However, the statute contains an exception for cases “removed pursuant to section 1443 of this title,” which “shall be reviewable by appeal.” Id. Because Carr illo expressly relied on § 1443 in his notice of removal, we possess jurisdiction. See Colorado v. L opez, 919 F.2d 131, 1 32 (10th Cir. 1990). It is not clear whether an appeal from a remand order in a case removed under § 1443 should be treated as civil or crimin al. See Taos Cty. Magistrate Court v. Currier, 625 F. App’x 358, 360 (10th Cir. 201 5) (noting that alt hough such cases are criminal in nature, cr iminal defendants are required to a dhere to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 in filing a notice of removal). But Carrillo’s notice of appeal was untimely with respect to the remand order under either standard. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(a) (30-day deadline in civil cases); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (14-day deadline in criminal

1 Although the motion is dated July 15, 2015, Carillo does not indicate when it was placed in the prison mail system a nd thus does not benefit from the prison mailbox rule. See Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005).3 cases). 2 However, Carrillo’s notice of appeal is timely as to the denial of his motion for reconsideration under either rule. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see also Philpot, 420 F.3d at 1165 (prison mailbox rule for computing filing date). Accordingly, we review only the district court’s order denying reconsideration.
III Under Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213 (1975), a defendant may remove a criminal case to federal court under § 1443(1) if: (1) “the right allegedly denied the removal petitioner arises under a federal law providing for sp ecific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality”; and (2) “the removal peti tioner is denied or cannot enforce the specified federal ri ghts in the courts of the St ate.” Johnson, 421 U.S. at 219 (quotation omitted). 3 Ordinarily, “vindication of th e defendant’s federal rights is left to the state courts” and thus removal is appropriate only if “it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pe rvasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.” City of Greenwood v. Peacock , 384 U.S. 808, 828 (1966).

2 Carrillo’s motion for rec onsideration was not filed in time to toll the limitations period under either standard. S ee Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) (deadline to appeal tolled by timely filing of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 moti on); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b) (motion to be filed within 28 days); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(3)(A) (tolling motions in a criminal case must be filed within 14 days).

3 Carrillo cited several other statutes in his notice of removal, but argues only §§ 1443(1) and 1446 on appeal. Section 1446 merely sets forth the procedural requirements for removal.4 Even construing his pro se filings liberally, Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), we agree with the distri ct court that Carrillo failed to allege facts suggesting that the Colo rado state courts will not protect his federal rights. Thus, the district court properly denied Ca rrillo’s motion for rec onsideration of its summary remand order. 4
IV AFFIRMED . We GRANT Carrillo’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge

4 Because the allegations contained in th e notice of removal were insufficient, we reject Carrillo’s argument th at the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing. See Laughlin v. Kmart Co rp., 50 F.3d 871, 87 3 (10th Cir. 1995) (jurisdiction should be determined from allegations in notice of removal), abrogated on other grounds by Dart Ch erokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 574 (2014).