United States v. Robert Franklin Shilt

Good Law
56 F.3d 75·1995 WL 306896·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21375
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 18, 199594-10549California305 words

Opinion

Opinion

56 F.3d 75 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Franklin SHILT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-10549. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 16, 1995. * Decided May 18, 1995. Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, HUG and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Robert Franklin Shilt, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order striking his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) or in the alternative to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 The district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant Shilt the requested relief. See United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 943 (9th Cir. 1993) (Rule 35(a)); United States v. Baker, 790 F.2d 1437, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986) (Rule 32(d)). As a general rule, a pro se inmate's motion to correct an illegal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.