United States v. James Lee McAdams

82 F.3d 424 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. James Lee McADAMS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-30213. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 26, 1996. * Decided April 1, 1996. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 James Lee McAdams appeals the district court's denial of his motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35, to correct an illegal sentence. 1 McAdams contends that the district court erred by construing his Rule 35 motion as untimely and, in the event that it was untimely, by failing to construe his motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 3 McAdams alleges that his 1982 sentence for two counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113 (a) and (d) was illegally imposed. McAdams contends that his Fifth Amendment right to Due Process was violated because the court…