Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo Angelo WHITE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-15
Citations: 141 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 04-10662
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo Angelo WHITE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 653–653

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo Angelo WHITE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-10662.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
Decided Aug. 15, 2005.
Stacey P. Geis, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ricardo Angelo White, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ricardo A. White appeals pro se the district court's denial of his coram nobis petition challenging his 108-month sentence for conspiracy and armed bank robbery in light of United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He contends that the district court erred in denying the petition on the ground that he is still in custody. The record shows that White is serving a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. He states that he has completed the term of imprisonment imposed by the District Court for the Northern District of California but has not yet begun serving the term of supervised release imposed by that court. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying coram nobis relief. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.