Court Opinion

ID: 9371441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 15:00:40.499149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:28.023795
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10293    Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 02/16/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10293
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       RODOLFO ORTIZ,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20710-JAL-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10293      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/16/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10293

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               The Government seeks to dismiss this appeal as untimely.
       On October 1, 2021, the district court entered an order denying
       Rodolfo Ortiz’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
       § 3582(c)(1)(A). Ortiz filed a motion to reconsider 14 days later, on
       October 15, 2021. The district court entered an order denying
       Ortiz’s motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2021. Ortiz
       filed his notice of appeal on January 23, 2022, after the 14-day dead-
       line to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (provid-
       ing in a criminal case, a defendant must file a notice of appeal
       within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order being ap-
       pealed). We remanded this case to the district court for the court
       to determine whether Ortiz had shown excusable neglect or good
       cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. See United
       States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 1983) (explaining
       in criminal cases, we have customarily treated a late notice of ap-
       peal, filed after the 14-day period but within the 30 days during
       which an extension is permissible, as a motion for extension of time
       and remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose
       of finding of excusable neglect).
               On limited remand, the district found that Ortiz did not as-
       sert, argue, or establish excusable neglect or good cause warranting
       an extension of the appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) (stat-
       ing upon a finding of good cause or excusable neglect, a district
       court may grant a 30-day extension of the 14-day deadline in a
USCA11 Case: 22-10293      Document: 28-1       Date Filed: 02/16/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-10293                 Order of the Court                           3

       criminal case, either “before or after the time has expired, . . . for a
       period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time other-
       wise prescribed”). If the government raises the issue of timeliness,
       then we “must apply the time limits of Rule 4(b).” United States v.
       Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009).
               Ortiz’s untimely notice of appeal was filed 27 days after the
       district court entered its last relevant order, and Ortiz has no good
       cause or excusable neglect warranting an extension of the appeal
       period. Thus, we dismiss Ortiz’s appeal as untimely.
              DISMISSED.