USA V. ALAN BARTLETT, No. 21-30190 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 23 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-30190 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00044-RRB-1 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 November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Alan M. Bartlett appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his “Motion to Allow Limited Contact While No-Contact Order is in Effect.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Bartlett contends that the district court violated his right to due process by * 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). Appellant’s motions for oral argument are, therefore, denied. denying him permission to contact certain trial witnesses despite a 2015 no-contact order. We disagree. The district court had the authority to issue and maintain the no-contact order, see Wheeler v. United States, 640 F.2d 1116, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 1981), and Bartlett has identified no meritorious basis upon which the order should be lifted or modified. Appellant is informed that the docket is correct. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-30190

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.