UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Karen Aide CANTU-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant, 344 F. App'x 15

PER CURIAM: Karen Aide Cantu-Medina pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possessing with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced to 87 months of imprisonment. Five months after the entry of judgment, Cantu-Medina filed a notice of appeal. Her counsel subsequently moved to withdraw. Finding that the judgment of conviction and sentence had become unappealable when no notice of appeal was timely filed, the district court denied the motion as moot.

Cantu-Medina now moves this court for the production of transcripts at government expense, the appointment of counsel, and permission to proceed in forma pau-peris. This court may dismiss an appeal when considering an interlocutory motion if the appeal “is frivolous and entirely without merit.” 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Cantu-Medina did not file a notice of appeal within 10 days after the entry of the criminal judgment, see Fed. RApp. P. 4(b)(1)(A), or even within the time for extending the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4).

Cantu-Medina is not entitled to have the untimeliness of her notice of appeal disregarded. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 478 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir.2006). Because the instant appeal is without arguable merit, Cantu-Medina’s motions for the production of transcripts at government expense, the appointment of counsel, and permission to proceed in forma pau-peris are DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 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R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.