
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ryan RUSSOW, Defendant-Appellant.
    15-1768
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 10, 2016
    
      For Appellee: Sarah P. Karwan, Marc H. Silverman, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney, District of Connecticut.
    For Defendant-Appellant: Vito Castig-noli, Milford, CT.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, J. GARVAN MURTHA, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), which provides that “the district court may ... extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(b).” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The district court extended Russow’s time to file a notice of appeal, but Russow did not file his notice of appeal until 13 days after the expiration of his extended time. Although “Rule 4(b) is not jurisdictional,” we have made clear that “[w]hen the government properly objects to the untimeliness of a defendant’s criminal appeal, Rule 4(b) is mandatory and inflexible.” United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 234 (2d Cir. 2008). In its brief, the government objected to Rus-sow’s failure to comply with Rule 4(b)’s mandatory time limits. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED as untimely. 
      
      . We note that Russow’s notice of appeal was filed 68 days after the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by Rule 4(b), more than double the time a district court can extend the time to file a notice of appeal under the rule. Given Russow’s failure to comply with even the extended deadline set by the district court, we need not decide whether the district court’s order purporting to extend the time to file a notice of appeal for longer than the 30 days specified in Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) would support this Court’s consideration of the merits of the appeal over the government’s objection.
     