Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Israel Martinez ORTEGA, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-13
Citations: 551 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 13-50479
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Israel Martinez ORTEGA, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 243–244

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Israel Martinez ORTEGA, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50479.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 13, 2014.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Israel Martinez Ortega, Sr., Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In 2002, Israel Martinez Ortega, Sr., was convicted of conspiracy to import a controlled substance and sentenced to 420 months 'of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. More than 11 years after the entry of the judgment, he filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the judgment. The district court construed the notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time to notice an appeal from the 2002 sentence imposed for his conviction, and the district court denied the motion.
Ortega moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) and for appointment of counsel on appeal. We may dismiss an appeal when considering an interlocutory motion if the appeal "is frivolous and entirely without merit." 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Ortega did not file his notice of appeal within the requisite time after the entry of his judgment or within the time allowed for extending the appeal period. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b). He is not entitled to have the untimeliness of his notice of appeal disregarded. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 478 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we deny his motions for leave to appeal IFP and for the appointment of counsel, and we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.