United States v. Armando Gonzalez-Heredia
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando GONZALEZ-HEREDIA, A.K.A. Gallo, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Ferdinand F. Fernandez
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50233 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01684-DMS v. MEMORANDUM* ARMANDO GONZALEZ-HEREDIA, a.k.a. Gallo, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Armando Gonzalez-Heredia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 97-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to kidnap, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) and (c);
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). and conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss.
On May 21, 2012, Gonzalez-Heredia filed a pro se notice of appeal from the judgment entered by the district court on March 5, 2012. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), the government now urges this court to dismiss the appeal. Under these circumstances, we must dismiss. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 942 (9th Cir. 2007) (where the government properly raises untimeliness argument, dismissal is mandatory). Contrary to Gonzalez-Heredia’s contention, the Appellate Commissioner order dated September 7, 2012, did not contain a determination as to timeliness, but rather simply discharged the order to show cause.
DISMISSED.
2 12-50233