United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40362
Summary Calendar
UNITES STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SERAFIN VIDAL-MORALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1-03-CR-768-ALL
--------------------
Before Davis, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Serafin 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
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-40362
-2-
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.