Pedro Damian Martinez-Carrillo (Martinez), represented by the Federal Public Defender (FPD), seeks to appeal two judgments revoking probation imposed following two prior guilty-plea convictions for illegally entering the United States. The FPD did not file a timely notice of appeal, nor seek a timely extension of the time for filing a notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1) & (4). Instead, five months after the revocation, the FPD filed a motion for the “judicial remedy” of an out-of-time appeal. The district court granted the motion.

“[A] district court does not have the authority to create appellate jurisdiction simply by ordering an out-of-time direct criminal appeal. Compliance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is imperative.” United States v. West, 240 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir. 2001). West did not create a new remedy, but addressed only the proper procedures for granting an out-of-time appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. at 459-61 (“Since the 1960s, our court, pursuant to a § 2255 motion, has permitted an out-of-time appeal when a defendant was denied assistance of coun *354 sel on appeal, through counsel’s failure to perfect an appeal.”) (citations omitted).

We VACATE the district court’s order granting the “judicial remedy” of an out-of-time appeal, and we REMAN'D the case. The district court should determine, in light of Castro v. United States, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 786, 792, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003), whether it will construe the motion for “judicial remedy” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and, if so, whether Martinez received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. If the district court construes the motion as a § 2255 motion and finds ineffective assistance, then the constructive § 2255 motion should be dismissed without prejudice and the judgment reentered. The district court may accept any pleadings or conduct any hearings necessary for compliance with this order.

ORDER VACATED; CASE REMANDED.