Case ID: f-appx_536/html/0720-01.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. Ladel Baptiste HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30334.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2013.
    Pamela Jackson Byerly, Assistant U.S., Stephanie Joyce Lister, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ladel Baptiste Harrison, Pollock, LA, pro se.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ladel Baptiste Harrison appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his motion for DNA testing and his motion to stay proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Harrison contends that he is entitled to DNA testing of a firearm, ammunition, and keys under the Innocence Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3600. The district court properly denied the motion because Harrison does not satisfy the statute’s requirements. Based on the record, including Harrison’s own statements regarding his possession of the firearm, Harrison has not identified a theory of defense that would establish his actual innocence or shown how the proposed DNA testing would produce new material evidence raising a reasonable probability that he did not commit the offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 3600(a)(6), (8).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harrison’s motion to stay the proceeding. Harrison’s contention that the district court judge was biased is unpersuasive. We decline to reach Harrison’s remaining claims because they are not properly before the court.

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