Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro AGUILAR-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-15
Citations: 95 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 03-10401; D.C. No. CR-98-05153-REC
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alejandro AGUILAR-ESPINOZA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alejandro AGUILAR-ESPINOZA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-10401.
D.C. No. CR-98-05153-REC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2004.
Decided April 15, 2004.
Kathleen A. Servatius, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alejandro Aguilar-Espinoza, Clayton, CA, pro se.
Before O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alejandro Aguilar-Espinoza appeals the district court's denial of his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
The district court properly construed Aguilar-Espinoza's notice of appeal as a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and denied it, because Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4) prohibits the district court from granting an extension of more than 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed to file a notice of appeal. See United States v. Buzard, 884 F.2d 475, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1989).
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.