UNITED STATES v. GARCIA (2020)

Roque Urdiales Garcia was convicted on numerous counts related to being the leader of a “very large and long lasting drug conspiracy.” United States v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330, 334 (5th Cir. 1993). He received a prison term of 600 months. Garcia appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 66 to the Sentencing Guidelines and his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

The Government has filed a letter, arguing that Garcia’s appeal should be dismissed because his notice of appeal was untimely. Garcia’s notice of appeal was filed well after the expiration of the 14-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal and beyond the 30-day period during which the district court could have extended the time for filing a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (b)(4). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as untimely.¹

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

1.   In any event, Garcia is not eligible for a sentencing reduction. Amendment 66 modified section 2D1.5 of the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5, Historical Note, (amended effective October 15, 1988 (see Appendix C, amendment 66)). But Garcia’s Presentence Report used a different provision, section 2D1.1, to calculate his offense level. As for his appeal of the district court’s refusal to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), that civil rule does not apply in criminal cases.

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.