United States v. Mayel Perez-Valencia , 609 F. App'x 402 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50598
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00442-PA-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MAYEL PEREZ-VALENCIA, AKA
Santos Irizarry Castillo, AKA Miguel
Martinez, AKA Miguel Angel Martinez-
Marquez, AKA Miguelito, AKA Mayel
Valencia Perez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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-Valencia’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.
-2-