Case ID: f-appx_308/html/0122-01.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. John HARPER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50019.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 12, 2008 .
    Filed Jan. 13, 2009.
    Sarah Baxter, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Dana Cephas, Cephas Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and CONLON, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Suzanne Conlon, Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Harper appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary.

Based on the evidence provided at the evidentiary hearing, the district court did not commit clear error by finding the government did not make Harper a promise in exchange for his testimony. See United States v. Helmandollar, 852 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir.1988). Further, because the district court did not err by finding no promise existed, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Harper’s motion to compel specific performance of the promise. See United States v. Anthony, 93 F.3d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1996).

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