# United States v. Christopher Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 5, 2011 · 452 F. App'x 738

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/614858

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Augustine BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 5, 2011
- **Citations:** 452 F. App'x 738
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Hawkins, Silverman, Fletcher
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/614858

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 5 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10007

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00580-SMM

v.
MEMORANDUM *
CHRISTOPHER AUGUSTINE BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011 **

Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Christopher Augustine Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s denial

of his motion for an extension of time to file an appeal, and of his motion to correct

his underlying sentence based on a computation error. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We first address whether we may hear Brown’s appeal. The district court

properly denied Brown’s untimely request for an extension of time to file an appeal

of his sentence because he failed to establish excusable neglect. See Fed. R. App.

P. 4(b); United States v. Mortensen, 860 F.2d 948, 949 (9th Cir. 1988).

Nevertheless, because the government forfeited the argument that Brown’s appeal

is untimely, we may exercise jurisdiction over Brown’s claim. See United States v.

Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 940 (9th Cir. 2007). Likewise, the plea agreement does not

preclude review of Brown’s claim, as the agreement is silent regarding his right to

challenge an alleged computation error. See United States v. Speelman, 431 F.3d

1226, 1229-31 (9th Cir. 2005).

Brown is not entitled to relief, however, because the record reflects the

district court did not award credit, nor did it intend to credit him, for the time he

spent in state custody.

Brown’s opening brief also seeks to raise additional arguments presented for

the first time on appeal, which we decline to consider. See Smith v. Marsh, 194

F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

2 10-10007

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/614858. Public record. Not legal advice.