USA v. Cedric Conner, No. 20-30338 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-30338 Document: 00515601614 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 14, 2020 No. 20-30338 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Cedric Conner, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:12-CR-69-1 Before Dennis, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Cedric Conner, federal prisoner # 15915-035, seeks appointment of counsel in his appeal of the 230-month prison sentence imposed in 2012 following his guilty-plea conviction for producing child pornography. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The district court denied Conner authorization to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, concluding that the untimely appeal was not * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-30338 Document: 00515601614 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2020 No. 20-30338 taken in good faith, and the Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. If an appeal “is frivolous and entirely without merit,” we can dismiss the appeal during consideration of an interlocutory motion. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Although the time limit for appealing in a criminal case is not jurisdictional, it is mandatory. United States v. Hernandez-Gomez, 795 F.3d 510, 511 (5th Cir. 2015). Moreover, although the Government may waive the time limitation, the Government does not do so where, as here, the Government files a motion to dismiss “with or before the Government’s first substantive filing.” Id. Conner makes no argument that the appeal is timely or that his untimeliness should be disregarded. Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that there is a nonfrivolous basis for making such arguments. See Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710, 715 (2019). Conner’s appeal, therefore, is frivolous because it is untimely. See United States v. PesinaRodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, see Hernandez-Gomez, 795 F.3d at 511, the appeal is DISMISSED, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2, and the motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. In a letter submitted to this court, Conner indicates that he seeks a compassionate release through a sentence reduction. Section 3582(c)(1)(A) of title 18 of the United States Code provides for a defendant to seek such release initially through the Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Franco, ___ F.3d ___, No. 20-60473, 2020 WL 5249369, at *1 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 2020). To the extent Conner moves this court for such compassionate release, therefore, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Conner refiling a motion in the district court pursuant to the process set forth in § 3582(c)(1)(A). See id. at *3. 2
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.
