Opinion
20-10397
09-07-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARTIN ANTHONY NINO, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted September 2, 2021 San Francisco, California
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 Arizona James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding D.C. Nos. 4:16-cr-01937-JAS-BGM-1 v. 4:16-cr-01937-JAS-BGM
Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
Defendant-Appellant Martin Nino (Nino) appeals from a November 6, 2020, interlocutory order in which the district court committed him to the custody of the Attorney General for pre-trial competency restoration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the collateral order doctrine. United States v. Friedman, 366 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2004). We review constitutional challenges to a statute and issues of statutory construction de novo. United States v. Quintero, 995 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted).
While this appeal was pending, Nino filed with this Court a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter stating that this Court's decision in Quintero, 995 F.3d at 1044-61, disposes of all of the issues presented in his Opening Brief. That is correct-each of the arguments raised by Nino in the instant case were raised and rejected by this Court in Quintero. See 995 F.3d at 1044-61. For the reasons set out in Quintero, we affirm the district court's order committing Nino to the Attorney General's custody for pre-trial competency restoration. See id.
AFFIRMED.