Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

659 F.3d 761

Docket No. 09-10303.

United States v. Pool

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Sept. 19, 2011.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2011-09-19

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2018

1 district · 2 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Relies on United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. · United States Internal Revenue Service v. Pattullo

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2011-09-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Robert A. Parker, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Phillip A. Talbert, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US-SAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

¶2Rachelle Barbour, Esquire, FPDCAFederal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

¶3Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON, PAMELA ANN RYMER, SUSAN P. GRABER, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, CARLOS T. BEA, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., SANDRA S. IKUTA, N. RANDY SMITH and MARY H. MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

¶4ORDER

¶5We have been advised that Pool has entered a guilty plea. The parties agree there is no longer a live controversy, and the case is moot. See In re Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898, 900 (9th Cir.2001) (“If a case becomes moot while pending on appeal, it must be dismissed.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, vacate the panel’s opinion, vacate the district court’s and magistrate judge’s orders and remand with instructions to dismiss the action. See United *762States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).

¶6The oral argument set for September 20, 2011 in San Francisco, California is vacated.

/659/f3d/761 · .json · Public domain