Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Osama Musa ALFERAHIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-28
Citations: 324 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 08-10113
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Osama Musa ALFERAHIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 623–623

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Osama Musa ALFERAHIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10113.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 28, 2009.
Beverly K. Anderson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael J. Bresnehan, Esquire, Michael J. Bresnehan PC, Tempe, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Osama Musa Alferahin appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977), and we affirm.
As a preliminary matter, we decline to dismiss this appeal under the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement. See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, 300 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.2002).
However, we agree with the district court that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit a second trial. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 14-16, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); United States v. Cote, 51 F.3d 178, 181-83 (9th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.