Case ID: f-appx_539/html/0798-01.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. Terra Lee Brandy Running CRANE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30305.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 28, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 30, 2013.
    Laura Bissett Weiss, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S., Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of MT (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, Jessica L. Weltman, Esquire, Federal Defender Research FDMT-Fed-eral Defenders of MT (Missoula), Missou-la, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Terra Lee Brandy Running Crane (“Running Crane”) appeals her jury trial conviction and fifty-seven-month sentence for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 113(a)(3), and Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 113(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

There was no error in the district court’s refusal to give a “missing witness” instruction. Even reviewing for abuse of discretion, Running Crane did not demonstrate that the missing witness was “peculiarly within the power of the [government],” or that “an inference of unfavorable testimony” against the government was natural and reasonable. United States v. Ramirez, 714 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir.2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Nor did the district court prohibit Running Crane’s attorney from highlighting the missing witness’s absence to the jury. The only instruction on this score was not to argue beyond the record, and Running Crane’s lawyer was still able to remind the jury of the witness’s absence twice during closing arguments.

Finally, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors, Running Crane’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.