United States v. Miguel Lavenant
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel LAVENANT, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stephen S. Trott (author), Consuelo M. Callahan, Atsushi W. Tashima
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 15-50307 15-50501 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-mj-01645-WVG- v. LAB MIGUEL ANGEL LAVENANT, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Angel Lavenant appeals pro se from two district court orders. In Appeal No. 15-50307, we affirm. In Appeal No. 15- 50501, we dismiss.
In Appeal No. 15-50307, Lavenant appeals the district court’s order * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). rejecting for filing his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for return of property. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the motion for failing to comply in several respects with the Southern District of California’s Local Rules. See United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009)
(only in rare cases will this court question the district court’s exercise of discretion in applying local rules). Lavenant’s arguments concerning the merits of his motion are, therefore, not properly before this court.
In Appeal No. 15-50501, Lavenant appeals the district court’s order denying his appeal of the magistrate’s order rejecting his motion to quash an indictment in the District of Delaware. As the government contends, we lack jurisdiction to review the propriety of an indictment issued in the District of Delaware. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal.
Appeal No. 15-50307: AFFIRMED; Appeal No. 15-50501: DISMISSED.
2 15-50307 & 15-50501