United States v. Derek Medina
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derek Andrew MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), Edward Leavy, Morgan Christen
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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50467 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00389-WQH v. MEMORANDUM* DEREK ANDREW MEDINA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 15, 2016** Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Derek Andrew Medina appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We dismiss.
* 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). The government seeks the dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Although Medina received an extension of time to file a notice of appeal (“NOA”), he did not file his NOA within the time permitted by the Federal Rules. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1)(A)(i), (b)(4). We must, therefore, dismiss. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 942 (9th Cir. 2007) (when the government objects to the untimely filing of an NOA, dismissal is mandatory).
DISMISSED.
2 14-50467