United States v. Baldev Madan, AKA Dave Madan

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Baldev Madan, AKA Dave Madan

132 F.3d 41, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 39821, 1997 WL 770407

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 1997

Docket97-50054

StatusUnpublished

This text of 132 F.3d 41 (United States v. Baldev Madan, AKA Dave Madan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Baldev Madan, AKA Dave Madan, 132 F.3d 41, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 39821, 1997 WL 770407 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

132 F.3d 41

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Baldev MADAN, aka Dave Madan, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-50054.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 1997.**
Dec. 10, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California William J. Rea, District Judge, Presiding

Before HALL, BRUNETTI, and RYMER, Circuit Judges

ORDER*

Baldev Madan appeals his conviction by jury trial and 27-month sentence for fraudulently transferring properties of bankruptcy estates in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(7). As documents submitted by the government show, on July 2, 1997, Madan became a fugitive when he failed to self-surrender to begin serving his sentence. He remains a fugitive to this date with a warrant outstanding for his arrest.

Madan's fugitive status does not deprive this court of power to hear this appeal, but it does disentitle the defendant from demanding appeal as of right. Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366 (1970) (per curiam). "One may not invoke the power of judicial review only thereafter to obey or disobey the [district] court's mandate as he sees fit." United States v. Freelove, 816 F.2d 475, 480 (9th Cir.1987). We therefore dismiss Madan's appeal with prejudice. Cf. id.

DISMISSED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

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