From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Orozco-Borboa v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 248
Nov 21, 2007
255 F. App'x 247 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-16344.

Submitted November 13, 2007.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed November 21, 2007.

Francisco Javier Orozco-Borboa, Safford, AZ, pro se.

Reese V. Bostwick, Esq., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. Deconcini, U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-00231-DCB.

Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Federal prisoner Francisco Javier Orozco-Borboa appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

On January 25, 2007, a motions panel of this court certified for appeal the issue of whether "the district court erred in re-characterizing appellant's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as an initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion." Upon further review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not, in fact, so re-characterize appellant's petition. Hence we vacate the certificate of appealability previously granted. Because we therefore lack subject-matter jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 730-31 (9th Cir. 2004).

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Orozco-Borboa v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 248
Nov 21, 2007
255 F. App'x 247 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Orozco-Borboa v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:Francisco Javier OROZCO-BORBOA, Petitioner — Appellant, UNITED STATES of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 248

Date published: Nov 21, 2007

Citations

255 F. App'x 247 (9th Cir. 2007)