Case ID: f-appx_363/html/0451-01.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. Dwayne Edward STRAUB, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30234.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2010.
    
      Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kelly R. Beckley, Beckley Law Firm, P.C., Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, KLEINFELD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is defendant’s third appeal to this panel. In defendant’s second appeal, he expressly sought “remand for trial on Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.” United Staten v. Straub, 538 F.3d 1147, 1164 (9th Cir.2008). In an opinion filed August 15, 2008, we remanded to the district court on Counts 3 and 4 and “affirm[ed] the convictions as to Counts 1, 5, and 6,” id. at 1166, explaining that defendant did “not articúlate! ] any specific reasons why ... the jury would not have convicted on Counts 1, 5, and 6” even if the error at defendant’s first trial had been remediated, id. at 1164. The government has since dismissed Counts 3 and 4, and defendant now appeals the district court’s refusal to grant defendant a new trial on Counts 1, 5, and 6. We affirm.

“We have repeatedly held, in both civil and criminal cases, that a district court is limited by this court’s remand in situations where the scope of the remand is clear.” United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir.2007) (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). The scope of our August 2008 remand was clearly limited to Counts 3 and 4. The district court was therefore “precluded ... from considering” arguments relating to Counts 1, 5, and 6, id., and did not err in refusing to grant defendant a new trial on those counts.

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