United States v. Matta-Ballesteros

27 F. App'x 762

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 23, 2001
• Docket: No. 00-50339; D.C. No. CR-87-00422-ER-17
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros appeals pro se the denial of his motion for reconsideration of his new-trial motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, following a conviction for his role in the kidnaping and murder of DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

Matta-Ballesteros contends the district court erred by denying as time barred his motion for reconsideration of his new-trial motion. We review de novo the district court’s determination whether a new-trial motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 was untimely. See United States v. Cook, 705 F.2d 350, 351 (9th Cir.1983). Rule 33’s time limitations are jurisdictional. See id.

A motion for reconsideration is timely if filed within the period to seek appellate review. See United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 386, 390 (9th Cir.1979). The time to file a notice of appeal in a criminal case is 10 days. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(l)(A)(I). The district court denied Matta-Balleste-ros’ new-trial motion on January 15, 1999. Matta-Ballesteros’ April 26, 2000 motion for reconsideration therefore was untimely-

Moreover, even if the April 26, 2000 motion was a second Rule 33 motion, it was still untimely. See Cook, 705 F.2d at 351; Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Matta-Ballesteros’ second new-trial motion for lack of jurisdiction.¹

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

1 . See United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, No. 99-50054, 2000 WL 297328 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2000) (mem.).

Because we affirm this appeal on the jurisdictional ground, we need not consider any pending motions.