United States v. Donahue

654 F.3d 919, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17242, 2011 WL 3611466
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 17, 2011·No. 10-10004·Published

Opinion

ORDER

We recall the mandate, which issued prematurely on February 8, 2011.

On January 14, 2011, we filed a memorandum disposition retaining appellate jurisdiction and remanding to the district court with instructions to answer two questions. The district court issued an order on August 1, 2011, answering those questions. In light of the district court’s order, we affirm. Because at trial the district court “had the opportunity to do exactly what [it] would have done had [it] held an evidentiary hearing” and “understood that suppression was on the table,” and because the court’s order clarifies that it would have denied a renewed motion to suppress had Donahue renewed that motion, we hold that the claimed violation of Donahue’s due process rights was “cured” at trial. United States v. Hernandez-Acuna, 498 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2007).

The mandate shall re-issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41.

AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Donahue, 654 F.3d 919, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17242, 2011 WL 3611466 (9th Cir. 2011).

654 F.3d 919 (United States v. Donahue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Hernandez-Acuna
498 F.3d 942 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)