Case ID: f-appx_288/html/0213-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Margarito IBANEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50043
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 13, 2008.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Scott M. Tidwell, Tidwell & Tidwell, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Through counsel, Margarita Ibanez-Martinez appeals his jury trial conviction for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens for financial gain. Ibanez-Martinez, who has been a fugitive since the selection of the jury, was tried and sentenced in absen-tia. The record reflects that the district court based its decision on the difficulty in rescheduling the trial; the burden on the Government and the Government’s key witness, who was under a hold by the Department of Homeland Security; and the unlikelihood that Ibanez-Martinez would return or be captured in the near future.

The Government contends that this court should dismiss Ibanez-Martinez’s appeal pursuant to the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine.” Counsel for Ibanez-Mar-tinez does not address this issue.

The “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” is an equitable doctrine that “limits a criminal defendant’s access to the judicial system whose authority he evades.” Bagwell v. Dretke, 376 F.3d 408, 410-13 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). Ibanez-Martinez has not been returned to custody since he became a fugitive on September 24, 2007. Under the circumstances, dismissal of Ibanez-Martinez’s appeal is appropriate. It is unlikely that Ibanez-Mar-tinez will return, under his own volition or otherwise, in the foreseeable future. Dismissal of this appeal is further supported by enforceability concerns, as any judgment on review may be impossible to enforce, and would serve an important deterrent function and “advance an interest in efficient, dignified appellate practice.” Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 240-42, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993); see Bagwell, 376 F.3d at 410-13.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5ti-i Cir. R. 47.5.4.