Case ID: f-appx_490/html/0060-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan BONNEAU, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 11-30372, 11-30373, 12-30166.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 31, 2012.
    Robert David Nesler, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ryan Bonneau Portland, OR, pro se.
    Kevin W. Bons, Beckley Law Firm, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. 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 Natl 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.

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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.