Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David L. RIES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-25
Citations: 10 F. App'x 539
Docket Number: No. 99-10043; D.C. No. CR-95-05174-OWW
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David L. RIES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 539–539

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David L. RIES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 99-10043.
D.C. No. CR-95-05174-OWW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2001.
Decided May 25, 2001.
Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Ries’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David L. Ries appeals from the district court's denial of various pro se post trial motions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo a district court's dismissal based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dremann v. Francis, 828 F.2d 6, 7 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam), and we affirm.
Because Ries filed a notice of appeal prior to the filing of his pro se motions in the district court, the district court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider them. As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. See United States v. Vroman, 997 F.2d 627, 627 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (explaining that "filing of notice of appeal divests the district court of its control over the aspects of the case involved in the appeal") (internal quotations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. All other outstanding motions are denied as moot.