United States of America v. Leilani Quintos

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEILANI QUINTOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50010
D.C. No. 3:04-cr-01650-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 4, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Leilani Quintos challenges various aspects of her revocation hearing and
subsequent sentence. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
now dismiss her appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
FILED
JAN 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, this court may dismiss a
defendant’s appeal where she “remains at large during the ongoing appellate
process.” Sun v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations
and citation omitted). To determine whether to apply the doctrine, “the critical
question” this court “must ask . . . is whether the appellant is a fugitive at the time
the appeal is pending.” Id. at 805. Still, “[t]he doctrine is equitable, not
jurisdictional,” and its “application is discretionary.” See United States v.
Gonzalez, 300 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, the court should also
consider whether dismissal would advance the doctrine’s purposes. Id.
Here, Quintos failed to report to probation as directed after the court
sentenced her to time served and three years of supervised release. When the
probation officer contacted Quintos’s attorney and attempted to obtain Quintos’s
contact information, Quintos’s attorney stated that he had also been unable to reach
Quintos. No officer of the court, including her attorney, heard from Quintos for
nearly two years prior to oral argument in this court. Although Quintos apparently
contacted her attorney just before argument was heard, her location remains
undisclosed and she has not reported to probation. These facts tend to show that
Quintos “has fled or hidden [herself] from the jurisdiction of the court,” id. at
1051, and is thus currently a fugitive. Because we are convinced that dismissal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
here would advance the purposes of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, Quintos’s
appeal is
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --