United States v. Martin Nino
This text of United States v. Martin Nino (United States v. Martin Nino) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 7 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10397
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 4:16-cr-01937-JAS-BGM-1 v. 4:16-cr-01937-JAS-BGM
MARTIN ANTHONY NINO, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 2, 2021** San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Martin Nino (Nino) appeals from a November 6, 2020,
interlocutory order in which the district court committed him to the custody of the
* 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). *** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. Attorney General for pre-trial competency restoration. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the collateral order doctrine. United States v. Friedman, 366
F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2004). We review constitutional challenges to a statute and
issues of statutory construction de novo. United States v. Quintero, 995 F.3d 1044,
1049 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted).
While this appeal was pending, Nino filed with this Court a Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter stating that this Court’s decision in Quintero, 995
F.3d at 1044–61, disposes of all of the issues presented in his Opening Brief. That
is correct—each of the arguments raised by Nino in the instant case were raised
and rejected by this Court in Quintero. See 995 F.3d at 1044–61. For the reasons
set out in Quintero, we affirm the district court’s order committing Nino to the
Attorney General’s custody for pre-trial competency restoration. See id.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Martin Nino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-martin-nino-ca9-2021.