United States v. Estrada

71 F. App'x 673

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 28, 2003
• Docket: No. 02-10450; D.C. No. CR-96-20128-RMW
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jose Armando Estrada appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his post-conviction motion for a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines based on rehabilitation and alien status. Estrada pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and was sentenced in 1997 to a 120-month term. We agree with the district court that it had no jurisdiction over Estrada’s motion for a downward departure.

AFFIRMED.¹

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.

1 . We reject the government's contention that Estrada's notice of appeal was untimely, because as a pro se prisoner, Estrada's notice of appeal is deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. Fed. R.App. P.4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).