USA v. Israel Ortega, Sr., No. 13-50479 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 13, 2014.
Download PDF
Case: 13-50479 Document: 00512498274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-50479 FILED January 13, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ISRAEL MARTINEZ ORTEGA, SR., Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-247-2 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In 2002, Israel Martinez Ortega, Sr., was convicted of conspiracy to import a controlled substance and sentenced to 420 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. More than 11 years after the entry of the judgment, he filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the judgment. The district court construed the notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time to notice an appeal from the 2002 sentence imposed for his conviction, and the district court denied the motion. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50479 Document: 00512498274 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2014 No. 13-50479 Ortega moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) and for appointment of counsel on appeal. We may dismiss an appeal when considering an interlocutory motion if the appeal is frivolous and entirely without merit. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Ortega did not file his notice of appeal within the requisite time after the entry of his judgment or within the time allowed for extending the appeal period. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b). He is not entitled to have the untimeliness of his notice of appeal disregarded. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny his motions for leave to appeal IFP and for the appointment of counsel, and we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 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.
