United States v. Ryan Bonneau , 490 F. App'x 60 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 11-30372
11-30373
Plaintiff - Appellee, 12-30166
v. D.C. Nos. 3:02-cr-00467-MO
3:10-cr-00402-MO
RYAN BONNEAU,
Defendant - Appellant. MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Ryan Bonneau appeals from the district
court’s orders denying his motion to quash a writ of garnishment, and granting the
government’s motion for a final order of garnishment. We dismiss Appeal Nos.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
11-30372 and 11-30373 for lack of jurisdiction. As to Appeal No. 12-30166, we
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bonneau contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to
quash the writ of garnishment. Because the record reflects that the district court
did not intend its order denying the motion to be final, we dismiss this appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. See Nat’l Distribution Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A ruling is final for purposes of § 1291 if it (1)
is a full adjudication of the issues, and (2) clearly evidences the judge’s intention
that it be the court’s final act in the matter.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Bonneau also contends that the district court erred by granting the
government’s motion for a final order of garnishment. We disagree. Contrary to
Bonneau’s contention, the district court retained jurisdiction to grant the
government’s motion while Bonneau’s appeal from the court’s denial of his motion
to quash the writ was pending. See Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 909-10
(9th Cir. 2007) (improper interlocutory appeal does not divest the district court of
jurisdiction over the case). Furthermore, the record does not indicate any
unreasonable delay by the government in seeking to garnish the funds, which it
properly sought to apply to an outstanding restitution award against Bonneau.
Treating this as a final judgment, we affirm.
2 11-30372, 11-30373 & 12-30166
Bonneau’s argument that the government should be sanctioned for seeking a
final order of garnishment is not properly before this court because Bonneau
withdrew his motion for sanctions in the district court.
Any arguments related to Bonneau’s motion for return of property are moot
in light of this court’s disposition in Appeal No. 11-30269.
Appeal Nos. 11-30372 and 11-30373 are DISMISSED; Appeal No. 12-
30166 is AFFIRMED.
3 11-30372, 11-30373 & 12-30166