Opinion
21-30190
11-23-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALAN M. BARTLETT, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska No. 3:13-cr-00044-RRB-1 Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
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 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.
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.