
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Daniel HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant, Jonathan Wagner, Edwin Deleon, Melvin Maisonave, Raul Sanchez, also known as Pepe, Richard Moreno, Jose Pastrana, also known as Cholo, Defendants.
    16-544-cr
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    September 29, 2016
    Corrected October 4, 2016
    For Appellee: David C. James, David C. Pitluck, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Robert L. Capers, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.
    For Defendant-Appellant: Daniel Hernandez, pro se, Waymart, PA.
    PRESENT: John M. Walker, Jr., José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judges, Richard M. Berman, District Judge.
    
    
      
      156 Honorable Richard M. Berman, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Daniel Hernandez, proceeding pro se, appeals from an October 23, 2015 order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 14 days of the entry of the judgment or order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). A district court may extend this deadline by 30 days if it finds excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Although Rule 4(b) is not jurisdictional, when “the government properly objects to the untimeliness of a defendant’s criminal appeal, [it] is mandatory and inflexible.” United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 234 (2d Cir. 2008).

Here, Hernandez’s notice of appeal, dated February 8, 2016, is untimely because it was not filed within 14 days of the October 23, 2015 order denying his § 3582 motion. And because his extension motion was also dated February 8, 2016, more than 30 days after the time in which to file a notice of appeal expired, it was also untimely. Consequently, because the Government objects to the untimeliness of Hernandez’s appeal, we must dismiss the appeal.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Hernandez on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s appeal is DISMISSED.  