Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian VALDEZ-ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-05
Citations: 70 F. App'x 998
Docket Number: No. 02-2203
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian VALDEZ-ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 998–999

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian VALDEZ-ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-2203.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Aug. 5, 2003.
David C. Iglesias, U.S. Attorney, Laura Fashing, Abuquerque, NM, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Adrian Valdez-Rocha, Big Spring, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously 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.
Adrian Valdez-Rocha pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. He appeals his conviction and sentence of sixty months in prison and three years of supervised release.
Judgment in this case was entered on December 5, 2001. Mr. Valdez-Rocha did not file this notice of appeal until August 1, 2002, seven and a half months late, and six and a half months after any possible extension of time he could have received. Timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. See United States v. Langham, 77 F.3d 1280, 1280 (10th Cir. 1996). We therefore dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
. Mr. Valdez-Rocha filed a motion to modify his sentence, which the district court denied on July 23, 2002. Although the notice of appeal was timely filed from the denial of the motion to modify, Mr. Valdez Rocha is challenging only his original conviction and sentence.