United States v. Israel Garza , 670 F. App'x 245 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-41599      Document: 00513736944         Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/27/2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 15-41599                             FILED
    Summary Calendar                    October 27, 2016
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff–Appellee,
    versus
    ISRAEL GARZA,
    Defendant–Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:13-CR-1064-1
    Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Israel Garza contests his 240-month prison term for possession with
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 15-41599     Document: 00513736944     Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/27/2016
    No. 15-41599
    intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He contends that the
    district court could sentence him to only a ten-year maximum because the
    information filed under 21 U.S.C. § 851 indicated that the enhancement was
    being sought under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(b). The government moves to dismiss
    the appeal on the basis that Garza failed to file a timely notice of appeal.
    The record supports the government’s contention. Garza filed his notice
    of appeal almost eighteen months after entry of judgment, well beyond the
    fourteen days that is permitted and also well beyond the time during which
    the district court could have granted an extension on a showing of either
    excusable neglect or good cause. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (b)(4); United
    States v. Alvarez, 
    210 F.3d 309
    , 310 (5th Cir. 2000). Although the untimely
    filing of an appeal in a criminal case is not jurisdictional, see United States v.
    Martinez, 
    496 F.3d 387
    , 388–89 (5th Cir. 2007), this court will not disregard
    untimeliness where the government raises the issue, see Eberhart v. United
    States, 
    546 U.S. 12
    , 18 (2005).
    The motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as
    untimely.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-41599

Citation Numbers: 670 F. App'x 245

Filed Date: 10/27/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023