This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
ISIDRO DAVID CASAREZ, 2 Worker-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 32,198 4 SALAZAR TRUCKING, INC., and 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 UNINSURED EMPLOYERS’ FUND, 7 Employer/Insurer-Appellant. 8

APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 9 Victor S. Lopez, Workers’ Compensation Judge 10 Dorato & Weems LLC 11 Derek L. Weems 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 Hale & Dixon, P.C. 15 Timothy S. Hale 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellants 182 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 CASTILLO, Chief Judge. 2 Employer/Insurer appeals from the co mpensation order entered on May 11, 3 2012. [RP 473] Employer/Insurer filed its no tice of appeal in this Court on Tuesday, 4 June 12, 2012. This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss for an 5 untimely notice of appeal. See Rule 12-601(B) NMRA (providing that “[d]irect 6 appeals from orders, decisions[,] or actions of . . . administrative ag encies or officials 7 shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the appellate court clerk . . . within 8 thirty (30) days from the date of the order, decision[,] or action appealed from”); see 9 also Govich v. N. Am. Sys., Inc ., 112 N.M. 226, 230, 814 P.2d 94, 98 (1991) (holding 10 that the timely filing of a no tice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to our exercise 11 of jurisdiction). Employer/Insurer ha s filed a memorandum in opposition to this 12 Court’s proposed summary dismissal asking this Court to exercise its discretion and 13 hear its appeal. Having given due consideration to the reasons stated in 14 Employer/Insurer’s memorandum in opposition, we dismiss. 15 Employer/Insurer is correct in asserting th at this Court has discretion to hear an 16 appeal if a party has failedto comply with the mandatory preconditions of a timely 17 notice of appeal. See Govich , 112 N.M. at 230, 814 P.2d at 98. However, “[o]nly the 18 most unusual circumstances beyond the contro l of the parties—such as error on the 193 part of the court—will warrant overlooking procedural defects.” Trujillo v. Serrano , 1 117 N.M. 273, 278, 871 P.2d 369, 374 (1994). Employer/Insurer does not allege 2 unusual circumstances or circumstances beyond its control; rather, Employer/Insurer 3 asserts that the untimely filing of its appealwas due to a miscalculation of time. [MIO 4 1 (stating that “[d]ue to a calendaring error, at the time Appellant filed its notice, it 5 believed the notice was timely”)] 6 We understand Employer/Insurer to ask this Court to consider its appeal despite 7 the lack of unusual circumstances becausethe delay of one day was de minimus. 8 [MIO 3] While we note that our Courts have previously excused de minimus delays, 9 these delays have still been coupled with unusual circumstances. See Schultz ex rel. 10 Schultz v. Pojoaque Tribal Police Dep’t , 2010-NMSC-034, ¶ 21, 148 N.M. 692, 242 11 P.3d 259 (holding that our appellate courts should exercise its discretion to hear an 12 appeal where the notice was filed one day late and an “unexpected delay” caused by 13 the postal service “constituted an unusual circ umstance outside [the party’s] control”); 14 Chavez v. U-Haul Co. , 1997-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 19-22, 124 N.M. 165, 947 P.2d 122 15 (holding that our appellate courts should ex ercise its discretion to hear an appeal 16 where the notice was filed fifty-eight minutes late and there were unusual 17 circumstances warranting the exercise of such discretion). Because Employer/Insurer 18 has not alleged that unusual circumstances le d to its notice of appeal being untimely, 194 we decline to exercise our di scretion to hear its appeal. See Schultz , 2010-NMSC-034, 1 ¶ 18 (declining “to adopt a rule of substantial compliance, because the appropriate 2 inquiry for determining if a court can exercise its discretion and entertain an appeal 3 even though it is not timely filed is whether unusual circumstances beyond the control 4 of the parties are present” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 5 For this reason, we dismiss. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

__________________________________ 8 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10

__________________________________ 11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 12

__________________________________ 13 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 14