that ‘the interests of justice ordinarily require that [the deceased] not stand convicted without resolution of the merits of his appeal.’” United States v. Rich, 603 F.3d 722, 724 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Oberlin, 718 F.2d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 1983)) (additional internal quote omitted). The abatement of a criminal charge does not mean, however, that the record of the criminal proceedings is destroyed, or withheld from the public, or sealed. From a legal standpoint, the defendant is treated as if he had never been charged. But the fact that he was charged is not erased from the record, nor is the record itself permanently sealed. See United States v. Real Property Located at 404 W. Milton St., Austin, Tex., No. 13-CA-194, 2014 WL 5808347, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2014) (<HOLDING>). Abatement is not tantamount to sealing.
holding that the appellant had not changed his residence from his registered address despite the fact that the house had never had electricity service during the time that he had lived there holding that the effect of a remand is to return this proceeding to the lower court as though the erroneous ruling never had been made holding that the government had not produced evidence that the defendant intended to influence an official proceeding because the evidence showed only that he intended to influence the state civil proceedings that he had brought against his insurance agency holding that while abatement resulted in dismissal of the indictment and vacation of the criminal proceedings against amado abatement does not preclude use of the fact evidence concerning amados actions in this related proceeding abatement ab initio left amado as if he had never been indicted not as if he had never lived holding that while the defendant may offer reputation evidence on his lawabiding character he may not testify that he has never been in trouble