Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Yepiz

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 20, 2016No. 07-50051, 07-50062, 07-50063, 07-50067, 07-50070, 07-50098, 07-50133, 07-50142, 07-50264Published

1DissentNguyen, Circuit Judge

While represented by competent retained counsel, Manuel Yepiz sent a pro se letter to the district court. Because the court’s local rules prohibit, among other things, represented parties from communi-*1081eating with the court pro se, his letter was not filed. Instead, the court returned -the letter to Yepiz’s counsel along with notice of the reason for the rejection. Importantly, Yepiz’s letter doesn’t suggest -any dissatisfaction with his attorney’s representation, only with its cost. Yet the majority holds that the court’s failure to consider the letter is structural error requiring automatic…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. United States v. Gonzalez-LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  2. Wayne Dale Schell v. Larry Witek, Warden Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California, 1Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  3. Christian v. Mattel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  4. United States v. Gary HalbertCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
  5. Charles Bland, Jr. v. California Department of Corrections Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API