Opinion ID: 2804694
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Amendments 591, 706, and 711

Text: The district court explained its denial of Mr. Muldrow’s motion as to Amendments 591, 706, and 711: “[T]he court has already rejected Mr. Muldrow’s request for relief under those Amendments and he advances no persuasive arguments as to why the court’s prior order should be reconsidered.” Aplt. Br., Ex. A at 7 n.1. -4- We affirm, but on different grounds raised by the Government. See United States v. Schneider, 594 F.3d 1219, 1228 (10th Cir. 2010) (“We may affirm on alternative grounds only when those grounds are dispositive, indisputable, and appear clearly in the record.” (quotations omitted)). “Motions for reconsideration . . . cannot be brought at simply any time.” United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1242-43 (10th Cir. 2011). “[A] motion to reconsider an order granting or denying a sentence modification under § 3582(c)(2) must be brought within the time granted to appeal that order.” Id. at 1243. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure prescribes the time for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case and therefore the time permitted to file a motion to reconsider a § 3582(c)(2) motion, as follows: “within 14 days after . . . the entry of . . . the judgment or the order being appealed.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). “Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may . . . extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by Rule 4(b).” Id. 4(b)(4). “Rules 4(b)(1)(A) and 4(b)(4) are inflexible claims-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) (quotations and alterations omitted). “Nevertheless, the time bar in Rule 4(b) must be enforced by this court when properly invoked by the government.” United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744 (10th Cir. 2008); see also id. at 750 (holding “this -5- court may raise [Rule 4(b)’s] time bar sua sponte”). The Government properly invoked Rule 4(b) here. The district court denied Mr. Muldrow’s § 3582 motion on December 8, 2014. Rule 4(b)(1)(A)’s 14-day window expired on December 22, 2014, and the additional 30-day extension window expired on January 21, 2015. Mr. Muldrow filed his motion for reconsideration nearly two weeks later, on February 3, 2015, making this motion untimely. The district court denied Mr. Muldrow’s motion as to Amendments 591, 703, and 711 on the merits on February 17, 2015. He filed his notice of appeal on March 2, 2015, within 14 days of the denial of his motion, but we need not reach the merits because the motion for reconsideration in the district court was untimely. See Randall, 666 F.3d at 1243 (affirming district court’s denial on the merits of a motion to reconsider its prior denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion because the motion to reconsider was untimely filed).2 Mr. Muldrow did not argue to the district court that excusable neglect or good cause justified reconsidering his arguments about Amendments 591, 706, and 711, nor has he done so on appeal. But even if we were to assume excusable neglect or good cause existed, his motion to reconsider was still untimely, and we affirm the district court’s denial on that basis.