United States v. Michael Yellow

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 01 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10140 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-08173-NVW-1 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL* MICHAEL EARL YELLOW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding Argued August 10, 2015 Submitted August 25, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges and PIERSOL,** Senior District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States Senior District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. The Government has renewed its motion to dismiss the pending appeal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. See Dkt. No. 18. We rely on the publicly filed declarations. See Dkt. No. 47. Considering a warrant from over a year ago remains outstanding for Yellow’s arrest, his whereabouts are still presently unknown, the U.S. Marshals are actively looking for him and he has not been found in his usual and customary places, and his pattern of failing to report to his probation officer and follow the terms of his supervised release—the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies here. See Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 239-42 (1993); Williams v. Alameida, 511 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, we GRANT the Government’s motion to dismiss, and we conditionally dismiss Yellow’s appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. If within 30 days Yellow submits himself to the U.S. Marshals, he may move to reinstate this appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. 2