Jose Estrada v. United States

585 F.2d 742, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7319
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 4, 1978
Docket75-8095
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 585 F.2d 742 (Jose Estrada v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jose Estrada v. United States, 585 F.2d 742, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7319 (5th Cir. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks reinstatement of an appeal that was dismissed without prejudice three and one-half years ago when he removed himself from the jurisdiction of this court by becoming a fugitive. 1 The only reason his motion for reinstatement is before us now is because he was recently recaptured and forcibly returned to the jurisdiction of this court.

A motion to reinstate an abandoned appeal is an extraordinary request. United States v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1977, 544 F.2d 832. There is no constitutional right to reinstatement of an appeal abandoned by escape. Estelle v. Dorrough, 1975, 420 U.S. 534, 95 S.Ct. 1173, 43 L.Ed.2d 377. Nor is there a right to automatic reinstatement of an appeal dismissed without prejudice because of the appellant’s escape. See United States v. Smith, supra. Because of the period of time that has elapsed since appellant was tried, there would be substantial danger of prejudice to the government if appeal were allowed at this time and were successful; therefore we would not allow reinstatement without at least a showing of good cause. In the absence of any evidence that appellant was not actually a fugitive or of any explanation for his conduct, he has failed to meet the threshold requirement that would justify reinstatement of a *743 right that he has relinquished. See United States v. Shelton, 5 Cir. 1975, 508 F.2d 797, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 828, 96 S.Ct. 45, 46 L.Ed.2d 44; Fratus v. United States, 5 Cir. 1974, 496 F.2d 1190.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to reinstate appeal is DENIED.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this case summarily. See Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis, 5 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 1158.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pueblo v. Esquilín Díaz
146 P.R. Dec. 808 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1998)
El Pueblo De P.R. v. Jose R. Esquilin Diaz
98 TSPR 138 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1998)
United States v. Eric Michael Wright
902 F.2d 241 (Third Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Maria Guadalupe Devalle
894 F.2d 133 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)
Commonwealth v. Passaro
476 A.2d 346 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1984)
Commonwealth v. Hurley
461 N.E.2d 754 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1984)
Thomas Quarles v. Lenwood Sager
687 F.2d 344 (Eleventh Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Mark Joseph Holmes
680 F.2d 1372 (Eleventh Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
585 F.2d 742, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-estrada-v-united-states-ca5-1978.