of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and illegal entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo, United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm. Lopez-Serrato contends that the district court erred by concluding that it lacked the inherent power, under equitable principles, to expunge criminal records and subsequently denying his motion to expunge his prior convictions. This contention is unpersuasive as we have previously held that federal courts do not have ancillary jurisdiction “in a criminal case to expunge [a] ... conviction record where the sole basis alleged by the defendant is that he or she seeks equitable relief.” See id. at 1015; see also United States v. Smith, 940 F.2d 395, 396 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding that the effects of a conviction including limitations on future employment were not adequate grounds for expunction but were instead the natural consequence of having been convicted holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled holding that an enhancement in a future sentence based on the present conviction is a collateral consequence and need not be advised of by the district court in its plea colloquy holding evidence insufficient for conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances when the drugs were not found on the person of or in the same room as the defendant but were only found on other persons on the premises holding that the court had no duty to warn defendants about the possibility of deportation as a collateral consequence of conviction