The attorney appointed to represent Caitlin Cheyenne Carter has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Carter has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsels brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein.
Carters notice of appeal was filed more than 14 days after the entry of her criminal judgment and was therefore untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). She filed an untimely notice of appeal, which was construed as a motion for an extension of time to appeal pursuant to Rule 4(b)(4), but the district court denied the motion on the ground that it was also filed outside the 30-day limit imposed by Rule 4(b)(4). In light of the district courts enforcement of the time limitations in Rule 4(b), the untimeliness of Carters notice of appeal may not be disregarded. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006).
Based on our review of the record, there is no nonfrivolous issue for appeal with respect to Carters criminal judgment or the district courts order denying an extension of time to appeal. Accordingly, counsels 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.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
Per Curiam:*
FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.