USA v. Mario Trejo-Rubio, No. 16-50099 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-50099 Document: 00513682935 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-50099 Summary Calendar FILED September 19, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MARIO TREJO-RUBIO, also known as Mario Trejo, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:15-CR-168-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The judgment in this case was entered on November 9, 2015, but the notice of appeal was not filed until January 21, 2016. The district court thereafter ordered that the notice of appeal be stricken as untimely and that Mario Trejo-Rubio’s motion for in forma pauperis appeal be denied. Before this court, the attorney originally appointed to represent Trejo-Rubio moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-50099 Document: 00513682935 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 No. 16-50099 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Trejo-Rubio has not filed a response. Because the district court enforced the time limitations of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), Trejo-Rubio is not entitled to have his untimeliness disregarded. 41725, 2016 U. S. See United States v. Acosta-Mosqueda, No. 15- App. LEXIS 10850 *2 (5th Cir. Jun. 15, 2016)(unpublished)(because the district court did not err in enforcing the time limitations of the applicable rule “this court may not reverse its decision to do so”); United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 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.
