The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-16267•Begoia Morgande v. JAMES E. TILTON; D. K. SISTO, Warden
12-16267Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOct 3, 2013
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Mary M. Schroeder, Senior United States Circuit**
Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEGOIA MORGANDE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES E. TILTON; D. K. SISTO,
Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 12-16267
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01824-MMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Mary M. Schroeder, Circuit Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 24, 2013***
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
OCT 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
12-16267 2
California state prisoner Begoia Morgande appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion to reopen the time to file an appeal of the
judgment. We affirm.
Morgande contends the district court erred when it denied his motion to
reopen the time to file an appeal. We review for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not
abuse its discretion when it denied Morgande’s motion under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) because it was filed more than two years after the
judgment had been entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B); In re Stein, 197 F.3d
421, 425 (9th Cir. 1999) (district courts lack discretion to grant motions to reopen
filed outside the 180-day period in Rule 4(a)(6)(B) even if appellant did not receive
notice of the judgment).
We construe Morgande’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.