Opinion ID: 606237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Consider Post-Incarceration Accomplishments

Text: 12 Langerston also argues that the district court erred by refusing to consider his accomplishments while in prison in ruling on the Rule 35 motion. As noted above, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of the Rule 35 motion. Furthermore, the Extra Good Time Recommendations and other documents which Langerston cites in support of his accomplishments were never filed in the district court. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(a), exhibits and papers not filed with the district court or admitted into evidence are not part of the appellate record. See United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 548 (9th Cir.1989). While we commend Langerston on his conduct while in prison, we are not able to consider these documents on appeal. 3 13