UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

HUMBERTO BELTRAN-FLORES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 14-6227 

(D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00089-C-2) 

(W.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement with a broad appeal waiver, Humberto 

Beltran-Flores pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with 

intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court entered 

judgment on September 25, 2014, and, despite his appeal waiver, Mr. Beltran-Flores 

filed a pro se notice of appeal on December 1. The government has moved to enforce 

the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) 

 

* This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist 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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 13, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

(en banc) (per curiam), or to dismiss the appeal as untimely under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). We appointed new counsel to represent 

Mr. Beltran-Flores in this matter. In light of the parties’ arguments, we grant the 

government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. 

 Under Rule 4(b)(1)(A)(i), a criminal defendant must file a notice of appeal 

“within 14 days after the later of: (i) the entry of either the judgment or the order 

being appealed.” Rule 4(b) is not jurisdictional, but is one of the “inflexible 

claim-processing rules, which, unlike a jurisdictional rule, may be forfeited if not 

properly raised by the government.” United States v. Garduño, 506 F.3d 1287, 1291 

(10th Cir. 2007) (brackets omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, 

the inflexible deadline in Rule 4(b)(1)(A) “assure[s] relief to a party properly raising” 

it. Garduño, 506 F.3d at 1291. Mr. Beltran-Flores filed his notice of appeal 

sixty-seven days after the district court entered the judgment. 

 Mr. Beltran-Flores argues that the government waived its objection to the 

untimely filing of the notice of appeal by failing to move to dismiss the appeal within 

fourteen days, as provided in 10th Cir. R. 27.2(A)(1)(a) & (3)(a). We noted in 

Garduño that “when the government recognizes a violation of Rule 4(b)(1)(A), it 

should consider filing a motion for dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 27 and 10th Circuit Rule 27.2(A)(1)(a) . . . .” Garduño, 506 F.3d at 1292 

n.7. But we also pointed out that the procedural rules do not require that a motion to 

dismiss a criminal appeal as untimely be made earlier than the government’s response 
- 3 - 

brief. Id. at 1292. We concluded that a “[f]ailure to invoke Rule 27.2(A)(1)(a) . . . 

does not constitute a forfeiture where . . . the appellee seeks dismissal for failure to 

timely appeal in its response brief.” Garduño, 506 F.3d at 1291 n.7. Similarly, the 

government raised the untimeliness of the notice of appeal in this case in its motion 

to enforce the appeal waiver. We conclude that the issue is not forfeited. See id. 

 We grant the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The 

appeal is dismissed. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam