Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-17
Citations: 425 F. App'x 386
Docket Number: No. 10-50806
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50806
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 17, 2011.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Miguel Rivera, Texarkana, TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Rivera pleaded guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Judgment was entered in March 2007. More than three years later, Rivera filed a notice of appeal and motions seeking in forma pauperis ("IFP") status, record transcripts, and appointment of counsel. The district court denied the motions.
Rivera moves this court for leave to proceed IFP and for appointment of counsel. We may dismiss an appeal during consideration of an interlocutory motion if the appeal "is frivolous and entirely without merit." 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Rivera did not file his notice of appeal within the required period after the entry of judgment or within the time for requesting the district court to extend the deadline. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1), (4). He is not entitled to have the untimeliness of his notice of appeal disregarded. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir.2006).
Rivera's motions for the appointment of counsel and to proceed IFP are DENIED. His delinquent appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All other outstanding motions are DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.