USA V. MIGUEL LAVENANT, No. 15-50307 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 15-50307 15-50501 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-mj-01645-WVGLAB v. MIGUEL ANGEL LAVENANT, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Angel Lavenant appeals pro se from two district court orders. In Appeal No. 15-50307, we affirm. In Appeal No. 1550501, we dismiss. In Appeal No. 15-50307, Lavenant appeals the district court’s order * 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). rejecting for filing his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for return of property. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the motion for failing to comply in several respects with the Southern District of California’s Local Rules. See United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009) (only in rare cases will this court question the district court’s exercise of discretion in applying local rules). Lavenant’s arguments concerning the merits of his motion are, therefore, not properly before this court. In Appeal No. 15-50501, Lavenant appeals the district court’s order denying his appeal of the magistrate’s order rejecting his motion to quash an indictment in the District of Delaware. As the government contends, we lack jurisdiction to review the propriety of an indictment issued in the District of Delaware. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal. Appeal No. 15-50307: AFFIRMED; Appeal No. 15-50501: DISMISSED. 2 15-50307 & 15-50501

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.