United States v. Aaron A. Rutledge Anthony Rutledge, AKA "Tony" Rutledge, Star-Beachboys, Inc.

Good Law
448 F.3d 1080·2006 WL 1277883·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11685
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 11, 200605-10060California315 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

Our opinion in this case, reported at 437 F.3d 917 , was filed on February 14, 2006. Approximately one week earlier, on February 6, 2006, the district court accepted the guilty plea of defendant Rutledge in the underlying criminal proceeding. The plea was entered pursuant to a plea agreement in which Rutledge and the government agreed that the assets that had been the subject of the appeal would remain in the hands of Unity House, subject to a limited and temporary receivership to conclude certain listed business matters of Unity House. At the time we filed our opinion, we had not been advised of the plea and the plea agreement.

The government now moves for withdrawal of our opinion and dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the plea agreement rendered the appeal moot. Rutledge has filed an opposition to the motion.

We conclude that the appeal was moot at the time we filed our opinion. The ruling in our opinion — that the assets of Unity House were not subject to criminal forfeiture in Rutledge’s pending prosecution' — addressed a controversy between the parties that no longer existed because of the intervening plea agreement. See United States v. Pemberton, 852 F.2d…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.