United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Alfred W. Stinson, Defendant-appellant, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992) May 14, 1992

Before PREGERSON, TROTT and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no excusable neglect for Stinson's failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Stinson's motion for reconsideration and extension of time. We therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Stinson's appeal of the district court order denying his motion to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy.

The district court's order denying reconsideration and extension of time is AFFIRMED. The appeal of the order denying dismissal based on double jeopardy is DISMISSED.

 *

The panel unanimously found this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.