United States v. Rafael Rendon-Arreola

Case: 19-50142 Document: 00515556813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 9, 2020
No. 19-50142
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Rafael Rendon-Arreola, also known as Rafael A. Rendon, also
known as Rafael Rendon, also known as Rafael Arreola
Rendon, also known as Rafael Arreola-Rendon, also known as
Rafael R. Arreola, also known as Rafael Rendon Arreola,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:15-CR-705-4
Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-50142 Document: 00515556813 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
No. 19-50142
Rafael Rendon-Arreola pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute, and
possession with intent to distribute, 500 grams or more methamphetamine,
in violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(A), and was sentenced
to, inter alia, 120 months’ imprisonment. He asserts the factual basis was
insufficient to support his guilty plea. In response, the Government
maintains that the appeal should be dismissed as untimely.
On threshold issue of timeliness, Rendon filed his notice of appeal
nearly two years after expiration of the time for filing a timely appeal. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(3). He similarly missed, by nearly two years, the opportunity
to receive an extension from the district court upon a showing of either
excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4 (b)(4). In his opening
brief on appeal, Rendon acknowledges his appeal is untimely, but urges the
Government waived the time bar by failing to invoke it prior to his appeal.
While the timely filing of an appeal in a criminal case is not
jurisdictional, it is mandatory. United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d
787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Our court enforces the mandatory time limit by
dismissing an appeal where the Government raises the issue. See United
States v. Hernandez-Gomez, 795 F.3d 510, 511 (5th Cir. 2015). Because the
Government does so in its response brief, it did not waive the time bar.
DISMISSED.
2