United States v. Mendoza, No. 10-4165 (10th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThe issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on whether a judgment has been "entered on the criminal docket" for purposes of Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(6) if it is noted only on an internal district court document that is not publicly accessible. Following sentencing of Defendant-Appellant Francisco Mendoza, the district court filed a sealed judgment on a document labeled "Criminal Docket . . .Internal Use Only." The criminal docket available to the public contained no indication that judgment was ever entered. Upon review, the Court concluded that this procedure did not satisfy Rule 4(b)(6): "Dockets and docket sheets have traditionally been considered public documents. Consistent with a centuries-long history of public access to dockets, we hold that the phrase 'entered on the criminal docket' contemplates public notation that judgment has been entered. Entry on a list of filings maintained for internal court use and inaccessible to the public does not qualify under the ordinary meaning of Rule 4(b)(6)."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.