U.S. v. Ali

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph A. ALI…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 21, 1990

933 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1990)

Opinion

933 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1990) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph A. ALI, Defendant-Appellant. No. 89-10282. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit November 21, 1990

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Decided May 21, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, No. CR-86-1045; Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding.

D.Nev.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Before HUG, WILLIAM A. NORRIS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Appellant seeks to appeal from the district court's denial of a motion for reconsideration of his motion to correct his sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. Rule 35. His motion for reconsideration was untimely because it was not filed within 120 days after the sentence was imposed nor was it filed within 120 days after the district court's receipt of a mandate from the court of appeals. A second Rule 35 motion "will not be deemed to relate back to the first motion.... [n]or is the jurisdictional defect cured by styling the subsequent motion as a 'motion for reconsideration.' " United States v. Hetrick, 644 F.2d 752, 756 (9th Cir.1980).

Appellant did not timely appeal the district court's ruling on the Rule 35 motion. Because the district court had no jurisdiction to consider the subsequent motion for reconsideration, we have no jurisdiction over appellant's attempted appeal from that motion. The appeal must be DISMISSED.