Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Douglas GRIFFEE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 261 F. App'x 70
Docket Number: No. 07-30286
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodney Douglas GRIFFEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 70–70

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodney Douglas GRIFFEE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30286.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2007 .
Filed Dec. 21, 2007.
Jennifer Martin, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rodney Douglas Griffee, Safford, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Andrew N. Bates, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is an appeal of the district court's July 13, 2007 order denying appellant's post-judgment motions for production of evidence.
The government appears to believe erroneously that this is a direct appeal of appellant's conviction or sentence. If this were such a direct appeal, it would be untimely because the amended judgment was entered on August 11, 2006. In addition, the Notice of Appeal expressly states that appellant is seeking review of the district court's July 13, 2007 order denying his post-judgment motions for production of evidence.
A review of the record indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.