The attorney appointed to represent Ernesto Barrientos-Zuniga has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Barrientos-Zuniga has not filed a response.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Ernesto Barrientos-Zuniga pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation following a felony conviction. The district court sentenced Barrientos-Zuniga to 77 months in prison and three years supervised release without supervision. Barrientos-Zuniga filed an untimely pro se notice of appeal, and the district court denied him an extension of time to file an appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), (4).

Rule 4(b)(l)(A)’s time limit for filing a timely notice of appeal “is mandatory, but not jurisdictional, because it does not derive from a statute,” and may be waived. United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2007) (following reasoning in Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 211-13, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007)). Pursuant to an order by this court, counsel certifies that the Government will seek enforcement of Rule 4(b)(l)(A)’s time limits. Moreover, a defendant does not have a right to have the untimeliness of his notice of appeal disregarded. United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). Given these circumstances, the instant appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous based on the untimeliness of the notice of appeal. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. For this reason, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein.