From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pool

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 19, 2011
659 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 09–10303.

2011-09-19

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Jerry Arbert POOL, Defendant–Appellant.


Robert A. Parker, DOJ–U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Phillip A. Talbert, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC–Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee.Rachelle Barbour, Esquire, FPDCA–Federal Public Defender's Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant–Appellant.D.C. No. 2:09–cr–00015–EJG–1.Before: 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.

ORDER

We 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 States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).

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


Summaries of

United States v. Pool

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 19, 2011
659 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Pool

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 19, 2011

Citations

659 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

United States v. Robinette

669 F.3d at 1066. In United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir.2010), reh'g en banc granted, 646 F.3d 659…

United States v. Riley

United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 1990) (considering detention order under 18 U.S.C.…