United States v. Mayel Perez-Valencia

609 F. App'x 402

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 29, 2015
• Docket: 13-50598
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The proper time and opportunity for the disputed subpoena duces tecum to have been brought to the attention of this court was before we issued a second opinion deciding Perez-Valeneia’s appeal, or in a petition for rehearing. The mandate issued on April 29, 2014, leaving nothing to resolve. The matter is now moot. Nevertheless, counsel asks us in effect to withdraw our opinion and to permit him to start over in district court on a new factual record. We decline this inappropriate request.

In any event, looking beyond the defendant’s forfeiture, the district court’s decision quashing the subpoena was a proper exercise of discretion. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c); United States v. George, 883 F.2d 1407, 1418 (9th Cir.1989) (affirming the district court’s decision to quash a subpoena that had the “ ‘earmarks of a wild goose chase’ ”).

DISMISSED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.