United States v. Mendoza, 698 F.3d 1303

Mendoza pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 846, with government agreeing to a low-end sentence recommendation.
Court conducted a sealed multi-defendant sentencing proceeding, calculating Mendoza’s Guidelines range at 135–168 months.
Despite counsel’s reminder of the plea agreement, the prosecutor highlighted severity and failed to advocate for the low end.
On September 3, 2009 the district court filed a sealed judgment; the entry was not reflected on the publicly accessible criminal docket.
Mendoza later sought his docket sheet; he filed a notice of appeal on September 13, 2010, raising timeliness concerns.
The panel held that judgment was not entered on the criminal docket for Rule 4(b)(6) purposes unless publicly noted; appeal deemed timely and the sentence affirmed after addressing merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judgment was entered on the criminal docket under Rule 4(b)(6).	Mendoza contends no public entry occurred.	Government argues judgment was entered via sealed internal docket entry.	Judgment not entered; appeal timely.
Whether the government breached the plea by not recommending a low-end sentence, and if so, whether plain error occurred.	Breach occurred by failing to advocate low-end sentence.	Breach did not prejudice Mendoza; sentence would likely be the same.	Breach occurred, but no plain error prejudicial enough to disturb the sentence; affirmed.

Faragalla v. Access Receivable Management (In re Faragalla), 422 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2005) (entry occurs when noted on the docket, not merely signed by judge)
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (U.S. 1978) (dockets serve public recordkeeping beyond notice)
Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (dockets generally open to public inspection)
United States v. Roman-Zarate, 115 F.3d 778 (10th Cir. 1997) (de novo review of Rule 4(b)(6) interpretation)
United States v. Osborne, 452 F. App’x 294 (4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished; court considered public accessibility of docket entry)
United States v. Yelloweagle, 643 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2011) (commentary on constitutional concerns in appellate timing rules)