Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert Franklin Shilt, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 56 F.3d 75NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Submitted May 16, 1995.*Decided May 18, 1995
Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, HUG and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Robert Franklin Shilt, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order striking his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) or in the alternative to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm.
The district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant Shilt the requested relief. See United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 943 (9th Cir. 1993) (Rule 35(a)); United States v. Baker, 790 F.2d 1437, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986) (Rule 32(d)). As a general rule, a pro se inmate's motion to correct an illegal sentence improperly brought under Rule 35(a) should be liberally construed as a 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 petition. See Johnson, 988 F.2d at 943. The district court did not err by declining to treat Shilt's motion as a Sec. 2255 petition because Shilt stated in his motion that he did not seek relief under Sec. 2255.
AFFIRMED.