USA V. ALAN BARTLETT, No. 15-30317 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-30317 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00044-RRB v. MEMORANDUM* ALAN M. BARTLETT, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Alan M. Bartlett appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his jury-trial convictions for two counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; twenty counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; five counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; five counts of false statements, in * 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). violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3); and five counts of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Bartlett contends that the district court erred by failing to conduct a competency hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d) prior to the last business day before his scheduled jury trial. He has not cited, and we have not found, any authority suggesting that the district court was required to hold the competency hearing earlier than it did. The district court thoroughly explored Bartlett’s competence, and there is nothing in the record to support Bartlett’s claim that the result of the proceedings would have been different had the competency hearing been held earlier. Moreover, the record shows that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Bartlett was competent to stand trial. See United States v. Gastelum-Almeida, 298 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2002). AFFIRMED. 2 15-30317
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.
