United States v. Castillo-Ruelas ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-50026      Document: 00516044096         Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/06/2021
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    October 6, 2021
    No. 21-50026
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                                Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Mateo Castillo-Ruelas,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 2:10-CR-779-4
    Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Mateo Castillo-Ruelas, federal prisoner # 00846-180, appeals the
    district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 324-
    month sentence pursuant to Amendment 782. He argues that the district
    court improperly balanced the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50026      Document: 00516044096           Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/06/2021
    No. 21-50026
    Government moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely, or in the alternative,
    for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits.
    The record reveals that Castillo-Ruelas’s notice of appeal is untimely
    as it was not filed within the time limitations of Federal Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 4(b). Judgment was entered on December 18, 2020, and Castillo-
    Ruelas’s pro se notice of appeal was not considered filed until January 7,
    2021, three days after the January 4, 2021 deadline. See Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
    , 270 (1988) (holding that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal shall
    be deemed filed at the time it is delivered to prison officials for mailing);
    FED. R. APP. P. 4(c)(1)(A)(ii) (codifying prison mailbox rule). Castillo-
    Ruelas does not dispute the determination that his notice of appeal is
    untimely and does not address the Government’s motion to dismiss.
    Although an untimely notice of appeal does not deprive us of
    jurisdiction over a criminal appeal, the time limits for filing a notice of appeal
    “are mandatory claims-processing rules.” United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez,
    
    825 F.3d 787
    , 788 (5th Cir. 2016). When, as in this case, the party asserting
    application of the rule properly seeks enforcement of the rule, a “court’s duty
    to dismiss the appeal [is] mandatory.” Eberhart v. United States, 
    546 U.S. 12
    ,
    18 (2005); see also Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d at 788 (holding that an untimely
    appeal is a procedural mechanism that, if invoked by the Government, would
    foreclose an appeal). Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the
    appeal is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED. The Government’s
    alternative motion for an extension of time to file a merits brief is DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-50026

Filed Date: 10/6/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/6/2021