Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Amos' request for oral argument is therefore denied.
D.C. No. CR-91-00392-JGD
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, John G. Davies, District Judge, Presiding.
Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
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.
Derrick Amos appeals from his guilty plea conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Amos filed his notice of appeal more than one year after the thirty days had elapsed from the expiration of the 10-day time limit prescribed for filing the notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. 4(b). The district court therefore lacked the authority to extend the time for filing the notice, even if excusable neglect were shown. See United States v. Green, 89 F.3d 657, 660 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Buzard, 884 F.2d 475, 475-76 (9th Cir.1989). Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Green, 89 F.3d at 661; Buzard, 884 F.2d at 476.
To the extent Amos alleges trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal, his challenge must be brought on collateral attack, at which time the record can be further developed. Cf. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 (2000) (rejecting bright-line rule that failure to file notice of appeal without defendant's consent is per se deficient performance and explaining that such an inquiry is heavily dependent upon factual circumstances of individual case).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice to its renewal pursuant to 9th Circuit Rule 4-1(d).