
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Earl YELLOW, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10140.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued Aug. 10, 2015.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    Vincent Q. Kirby, Karla Delord, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Theron M. Hall, III, The Hall Law Firm, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant. •
    Before: KOZINSKI and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges and PIERSOL, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States Senior District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
    
   ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Government has renewed its motion to dismiss the pending appeal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. See Dkt. No. 18. We rely on the publicly filed declarations. See Dkt. No. 47. Considering a warrant from over a year ago remains outstanding for Yellow’s arrest, his whereabouts are still presently unknown, the U.S. Marshals are actively looking for him and he has not been found in his usual and customary places, and his pattern of failing to report to his probation officer and follow the terms of his supervised release — the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies here. See Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 239-42, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993); Williams v. Alameida, 511 F.3d 973 (9th Cir.2007).

Therefore, we GRANT the Government’s motion to dismiss, and we conditionally dismiss Yellow’s appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. If within 30 days Yellow submits himself to the U.S. Marshals, he may move to reinstate this appeal.

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