United States v. Alan Bartlett , 675 F. App'x 759 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30317
Plaintiff-Appellee, 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