Johnson v. United States

5 F. App'x 707
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 5, 2001
DocketNo. 00-30228; D.C. No. CR-89-00190-JCC
StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. App'x 707 (Johnson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. United States, 5 F. App'x 707 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM2

Melvin Vernell Johnson petitions pro se for review of his 1990 conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute drugs (21 U.S.C. § 846), one count of distribution of in excess of fifty grams of cocaine base (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), and thirteen counts of money structuring (18 U.S.C. § 5324).

Johnson asserts that the district court committed jurisdictional error when it convicted and sentenced him for cocaine base/ crack cocaine where the substance has not been scheduled or controlled under 21 U.S.C. §§ 811 or 812 at the time of Johnson’s indictment.

The government asserts that a direct appeal is untimely and that there is no basis to interpret this claim as an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We agree. See Fed. RApp. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (criminal defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed in district court within ten days of entry of judgment); United States v. Valdez, 195 F.3d 544, 546 (9th Cir.1999) (applying AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations to § 2255 motion). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this petition.

DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Valdez
195 F.3d 544 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 F. App'x 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-united-states-ca9-2001.