Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 44.2 kB
Pages: 2
Date: October 20, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 368 Words, 2,232 Characters
Page Size: 622.08 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/41980/27.pdf

Download Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona ( 44.2 kB)


Preview Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
l FOR THE NINTI-I CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10042
D.C. No. CR··04—00877—F]M
Plaintiff - Appellee, ‘ ‘
v.
JUDGMENT
ALEJANDRO SALGADO-PEREZ, aka
Alej andro Perez-Salgado,
Defendant — Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
On consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the appeal in this cause be, and herebyis DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
Filed and entered 09/20/05
3/l·}$l<»?A?8§¥¢aeSQN
CIeu¢k_,c>f Corgi r
/gn‘Esr_--v‘ ·
octet zizanég
by; m { H rib v
._} D:• I `: __
Case 2:04—cr—00877-FJI\/I Document 27 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
F I L E D
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 20 zms
GLEIIK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10042
Plaintiff- Appellee, - D.C. No. CR-04-00877-FJM
` g District of Arizona,
v. Phoenix
ALEJANDRO SALGADO—PEREZ, aka _ lg _
Alejandro Perez—Salgado, ` -- ORDER p · -
Defendant - Appellant. _ · I _ I
Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWRINS, Circuit Judges
On July 13, 2005, the district court denied appellantjs motion for an
extension of time to file_a notice of appeal, tindingthat there was no excusable
neglect for the late filing of the notice of appeal. We have reviewed the district
_court’s order and find that district courtdid not abuse.its discretion-in finding
l that there was no evidence to support Ia finding of excusable neglect for
appellant’s failure to tile anotice of appeal within 10 days of entry of judgment.
See United States v. Green, 89 F.3d 657, 660 (9th Cir. I996)`. i Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed _for lack of jurisdiction. See_Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(l), (4); 28
§ 1291.. _ - _ , _ p
msivnsssn. _ I _ I _ I A
smoA1‘r\P¤¤¤1¤rax09.12.0s\mm\¢jsws-1u042.¤ipa
Case 2:O4—cr—OO877-FJIVI Document 27 Filed 1-O/12/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:04-cr-00877-FJM

Document 27

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cr-00877-FJM

Document 27

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 2 of 2