Case Name: UNITES STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Serafin VIDAL-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 04-40362
Parties: UNITES STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Serafin VIDAL-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 714–714

Head Matter:
UNITES STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Serafin VIDAL-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40362.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Cesar A. Amador, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Serafín Vidal-Morales pleaded guilty to being found in the United States after deportation and was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Vidal-Morales appeals the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider sentence for lack of jurisdiction. He also contends that his motion to reconsider was filed within the time for requesting an extension of time to appeal based on excusable neglect and that this court should remand this case to the district court for a determination of excusable neglect.
Vidal-Morales' motion sought reconsideration of the district court's sentence, and contrary to Vidal-Morales' contention, his motion does not evince an intent to appeal. Vidal-Morales' request for a remand for a determination of excusable neglect is DENIED. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987); Page v. DeLaune, 837 F.2d 233, 237 (5th Cir.1988).
Because Vidal-Morales' motion for reconsideration was filed more than ten days after the entry of the district court's judgment, the district court was without jurisdiction to address it. United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 48-49 (5th Cir.1982). Likewise, the motion for reconsideration was not authorized under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35, and the district court did not err in denying Vidal-Morales' motion to reconsider sentence for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir.1994).
Accordingly, the district court's order denying Vidal-Morales' motion to reconsider sentence is AFFIRMED.
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.