USA V RUTLEDGE, No. 05-10060 (9th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AARON A. RUTLEDGE; ANTHONY RUTLEDGE, aka Tony Rutledge, Star-Beachboys, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.   No. 05-10060 D.C. No. CR-02-00438-DAE ORDER  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 15, 2005 San Francisco, California Filed May 11, 2006 Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge, William C. Canby, Jr., Circuit Judge, and Kevin Thomas Duffy,* Senior Judge. COUNSEL John D. Cline, Jones Day, San Francisco, California, for the appellant. Patrick T. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the appellee. *The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, Senior Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 5295 5296 UNITED STATES v. RUTLEDGE Keith K. Hiraoka, Roeca, Louie & Hiraoka, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the amicus curiae. 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 1241 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissing appeal as moot when plea agreement disposed of assets that were subject of appeal). We accordingly grant the government s motion. The opinion reported at 437 F.3d 917 is withdrawn and the appeal is dismissed as moot. Because the mootness was the result of a settlement between the parties, we do not order vacatur of the district court s order. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994). UNITED STATES v. RUTLEDGE 5297 The motion of Unity House, Inc., to intervene in order to oppose the government s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. OPINION WITHDRAWN; APPEAL DISMISSED; INTERVENTION DENIED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2006 Thomson/West.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
