22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4af,MEMORANDUM 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); 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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4dc,

MEMORANDUM

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); 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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.