United States v. Mario De Leon

Case: 19-40168 Document: 00515332446 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED March 4, 2020 No. 19-40168 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee v.

MARIO DE LEON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:18-CR-312-1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario De Leon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). De Leon has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein.

• • 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-40168 Document: 00515332446 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2020

No. 19-40168

De Leon’s notice of appeal was filed more than 14 days after the entry of his criminal judgment and was therefore untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A). See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A). He moved for an extension of time to appeal pursuant to Rule 4(b)(4), but the district court denied the motion on the ground that there was not good cause or excusable neglect warranting an extension. In light of the district court’s enforcement of the time limitations in Rule 4(b), the untimeliness of De Leon’s notice of appeal may not be disregarded. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). Based on our review of the record, there is no nonfrivolous issue for appeal with respect to De Leon’s criminal judgment or the district court’s order denying an extension of time to appeal. The instant appeal is without arguable merit. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.