Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Armando RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Jose Manuel Farfan, a.k.a. Jose Manuel Farfar Gamboa, a.k.a. Juan Miguel Flores, a.k.a. Juan Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-16
Citations: 447 F. App'x 803
Docket Number: No. 10-10221
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Armando RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Jose Manuel Farfan, a.k.a. Jose Manuel Farfar Gamboa, a.k.a. Juan Miguel Flores, a.k.a. Juan Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 803–803

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Armando RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Jose Manuel Farfan, a.k.a. Jose Manuel Farfar Gamboa, a.k.a. Juan Miguel Flores, a.k.a. Juan Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10221.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
Filed Aug. 16, 2011.
Brian C. Lewis, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jorge Armando Rodriguez, White Deer, PA, pro se.
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Armando Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to correct sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rodriguez contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion to correct sentence because he was not given credit for time served in state custody. The district court did not err when it denied the motion because "district courts lack authority at sentencing to give credit for time served." See United States v. Peters, 470 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.