United States of America v. Marco Uribe

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 1, 2024*
Decided July 1, 2024
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-3210
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARCO URIBE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:21-cr-00193-JPH-MJD-9
James Patrick Hanlon,
Judge.
O R D E R
Marco Uribe sought compassionate release from prison, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1),
and the district judge denied his motion on October 23, 2023. He had until November 6
to appeal. See F ED. R. APP . P. 4(b)(1)(A). Uribe handwrote “11/6/2023” on his notice of
appeal, but the district court did not receive the notice until November 13. Under the
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral
argument is unnecessary. F ED. R. APP . P. 34(a)(2).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-3210 Page 2
prison-mailbox rule, the notice would be timely if Uribe deposited it in the prison’s mail
system on November 6 and he submitted a declaration or notarized statement
confirming that date of deposit. See F ED. R. APP . P. 4(c)(1)(A)(i). But Uribe did not
include such a statement. His notice would also be timely if a date stamp showed that it
was mailed by November 6. See F ED. R. APP . P. 4(c)(1)(A)(ii). But the stamp on Uribe’s
envelope shows that his notice was mailed on November 8. Thus, his appeal is
untimely. And because the government has elected to stand on its right to have an
untimely appeal in a criminal case dismissed, we must enforce the time limit. See United
States v. Rollins, 607 F.3d 500, 501 (7th Cir. 2010).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --