United States of America v. Erik Islas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERIK ISLAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10039
D.C. No.
4:16-cr-50120-CKJ-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted and Submission Withdrawn February 7, 2019
Resubmitted April 22, 2019
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: HAWKINS, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.**
Erik Islas was sentenced to 11 months in custody, to be followed by 24 months
of supervised release. On appeal, he challenges several conditions of his supervised
release. On January 30, 2019, the government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal,
* 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).
FILED
MAY 7 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
alleging that Islas had failed to (1) report to his probation officer for the past two
months; and (2) notify his probation officer of his change in residence. An arrest
warrant has been issued for Islas. At the joint suggestion of the parties, we vacated
oral argument and stayed the appeal for 60 days. We set a briefing schedule on the
government’s motion to dismiss. We have now received Islas’ response to the
motion, and a reply memorandum. We dismiss the appeal.
1. Under the “fugitive disentitlement” doctrine, “an appellate court may
dismiss the appeal of a defendant who is a fugitive from justice during the pendency
of his appeal.” Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 239 (1993). “The
doctrine does not apply to an appellant just because he has not reported as directed
to the probation office, in the absence of a showing that he has fled or hidden himself
from the jurisdiction of the court.” United States v. Gonzalez, 300 F.3d 1048, 1051
(9th Cir. 2002). Here, however, Islas has hidden himself from the jurisdiction of the
court. His current location is unknown. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal is
warranted. See Williams v. Alameida, 511 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissing
an appeal when appellant “failed to report to his parole agent,” and “[a]n arrest
warrant has been issued for [appellant] who remains a parolee at large.”); United
States v. Torres, 221 F. App’x 646, 647 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissing an appeal when
appellant’s “counsel has informed this court that [appellant] is a fugitive and that
there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2. We decline Islas’ request for a further 42 day “grace period” in which he
may surrender. This appeal has already been stayed for 60 days, and Islas could
have turned himself in during that period. See Parretti v. United States, 143 F.3d
508, 511 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
DISMISSED. The pending motions to file documents under seal [Dkts. 65,
66, 68, 69] are GRANTED.

-- 3 of 3 --