Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cristobal Perez BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-11
Citations: 548 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 13-50471
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cristobal Perez BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 254–254

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cristobal Perez BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50471
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 11, 2013.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Cristobal Perez Bautista, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cristobal Perez Bautista, federal prisoner #87161-280, was convicted by guilty plea of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced him to a total of 168 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release. Over one year later, Bautista filed in district court a pro se motion for an extension of time in which to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. His motion was not accompanied by a § 2255 motion. The district court denied that motion for an extension of time.
In this court, Bautista has filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, a motion requesting correction of the record, and an appellate brief. The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Bautista's motion for an extension of time to file a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 163 (2d Cir.2000).
Accordingly, the district court's denial of Bautista's motion is AFFIRMED, and his motions for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and for correction of the record are DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.