N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM E R IC A,

Pla intiff-Appe lle e , v. JOHN THOM AS AB R

AM S, AKA Da

vid B la c kwe ll, AKA B u c k, AKA Da vid Ge orge Garne tt, AKA John M c Dona l d, AKA John Gordon W a lke r,

De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 16-10397

D.C
. No. 3:14-c r-00069-M M D-W G C -1
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 14, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd EZR A, * * Distric t Judge
. Appe lla

nt pic ke d up two 15-y e ar-old hitc hhike rs outsideof Sa c ram e nto, C a lifornia , unde r the pre te nse of giving them a ride to the ir de sire d

de stina tion. 

# FIL ED
J AN 29 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The Honora

ble David A. Ezra , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion.Howe ve r, inste a d of doing so, he is a lle g e d

to ha ve use d thre ats a

nd phy sic a l viole nc e to ke e p the m

from e sc a ping his c ontrol. During this pe riod, he is furthe r
a lle ge d to ha

ve se xua lly

a ssa ulte d the fe m a l e vic tim , both in C a lifornia and a fte r trave ling with the

pa ir to R e no, Ne va da . Appe lla nt wa s c onvic t e d a fte r a

jury tria l of: (1) two c o unts of kidna p ping, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1201(a)(1) an d (g)(1); and (2) one c ount of tra nsporta tion of a m inor for ille ga l se x ua l purpose s, in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2423(a ). Appe lla nt now a p pe a l s his c o nvic tion, a

rguing: (1) his rights to selfre pre se ntation a

nd due proc e ss we re viola te d; (2) R ule 413 of the Fe d e ra l R

ule s of Evide n c e is unc o n stitutiona l , a n d e ve n if c onstitutiona

l, R ule s 413 a

nd 403 we re im prope rly a pplie d in a dm itting prior-bad-a c ts e vide n c e in his c a se ; (3) re ve rsible prose c utoria l m isc onduc t w a s c om m itte d; (4) the distric t

c o urt e rre d in de ny ing his
m otion to inspe c t a pa

rtic ula r pie c e of e vide n c e ; (5) the e vide nc e wa s insuffic ie nt to support his c onvic tions; (6) the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing his motion for a
ne w tria l; a

nd (7) c um

ulative e rror warrants re ve rsa l
. Se lf-Re pr e se ntation and Due Pr oc e ss G r ant of Se lf-Re pr e se ntation. The va l idity of a Fare tta wa ive r is re vie we d de novo. Unite d State

s v . Ersk ine , 355 F.3d 1161, 1166 (9th C ir. 2004). Appe lla nt
argue s the tria l c ourt e rre d in: (1) c onditioning its gra nt of se lf-re pre s e ntation on not gra nting a ny furthe r c ontinua

nc e s; (2) gra

nting se lf-re pre se ntation while
2 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7finding it wa s for purpose s of de la y and while aware Appe lla nt wa s c la im ing he suffe re d from

m e nta l illne ss, inc luding sc hiz ophre nia
. Appe lla nt’ s first a

rgum e nt fa ils be c a

use it m issta

te s the re c ord. The re c ord
re ve a ls nothing m

o re tha n tha t the tria l c ourt de nie d the m otion to c ontinue tha t
wa s c urre ntly

pe nding be fore it a

t the tim e it de c ide d Appe lla nt’ s m o tion to proc e e d p ro se

— c a utioning Appe lla

nt tha t the grant of pro se

re pre se n tation wa s not suffic ie nt to wa

rrant a c o n tinua

nc e at tha t tim e , 77 da

y s prior to trial. Appe lla nt’ s se c o nd a

rgum e nt sim ila

rly fa ils. There c ord is c le ar that the tria l judge satisfie d he r obliga tion to a dvise Appe lla

nt of the wa

rnings re quire d

unde r Unite d State s v . Farhad

, 190 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th C ir. 1999) (pe r c uriam ). Furthe r, m e n ta l illne ss, inc luding sc hiz ophre nia , le t a lone the m e re possibility

of m e nta l illne ss, doe s not m ake a wa i ve r unknowing or uninte llige nt. The c om p e te nc y re q

uire m e nt in this c onte xt is thesa m e a s tha t re quire d for sta nding tria l. Godine

z v . Moran , 509 U.S. 389, 399–400 (1993). The m e nta l illne sse s a lle ge d by

Appe l la nt do not re nde r him

inc om pe te nt. Se e Unite d State

s v . Garza , 751 F.3d 1130, 1136 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ Eve n a m e nta l ly de ra nge d de fe nda

nt is out of luc k if the re is no indic ation tha t he fa ile d to unde rsta

nd or a ssist in his
c rim ina l proc e e dings.” ); Basse tt v . Mc C arthy , 549 F.2d 616, 619 (9th C ir. 1977) (holding tha

t a sc hiz ophre nia dia gnosis “ d o[e s] not ne c e ssa rily im ply tha t [pe t itione r] did not understa nd the proc e e d ing or c o u ld not c oope ra te with his

3 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7c ounse l” ).

De nial of Re que ste d Continuanc e s . The sta nda rd of re vie w for the grant or de nia l of c ontinua

nc e s is “ c l e ar a

b use of . . . disc re tion.” Unite d State s v . Fly nt , 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th C ir. 1985), ame nde d , 764 F.2d 675 (9th C ir. 1985). At a
m inim um , the a ppe lla nt m ust show pre

j udic e re sulting from

the c ourt’ s de nia l. Armant v . Marque

z , 772 F.2d 552, 556–57 (9th C ir. 1985). Thepre judic e inquiry foc u se s on the “ e xte nt to whic h the a ggrie v e d pa rty ’ s right to pre s e nt his de fe nse ha s be e n a ffe c te d
. ” U

nite d State

s v . Me jia , 69 F.3d 309, 318 n.11 (9th C ir. 1995). Appe lla nt c annot show the

re quire d pre

j udic e . A c ontinua

nc e would not have c h an ge d the fa c t tha t the m otions here fe re n c e d we re a lre a dy de c ide d. M ore im porta ntly , the re turne d m a il origina t e d from the c ourt, not from

the Gove rnm e nt’ s e fforts to se rve him with the ir m otions. There is no e vide nc e Appe l la n t fa ile d to re c e ive any

of the se m otions in a tim e ly m a nne r. Thus, no pre j udic e c ould flow from

the Gove rnm e nt’ s filing of notic e s of non-opposition
e ithe r. The witne ss una

v a ila bility Appe lla nt c om pla ins of wa s not theba s is for a ny of the de nie d m otions to c ontinue he now a ppe a ls. Appe lla nt’ s la c k of pre pa

re dne ss c la im

is be lie d by the re c ord. “ Ge ne ra l
a lle gations tha

t a c ontinua nc e would ha

ve a llowe d [de fe nda

nt] to pre pa

re a be tte r de fe nse . . . [a

re ] insuffic ie n t to a llow [the C ourt] to find a n a b use of disc re tion.” Unite d State s v . Sarno , 73 F.3d 1470, 1493 (9th C ir. 1995). Appe lla nt doe s not
4 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7point to e xam ple s of how this lac k of pre pa ra tion m anife ste d, a

nd the re c ord
re ve a ls he did a

re a sona ble job of de fe nding him se lf. Furthe r, a ny ina bility to
c oordina te with his inve stiga

tor wa s of his own making. He ha d ove r two m onths prior to tria l to work with the inve s tiga tor through sta

nd-by c ounse l, e ve n a fte r an initia l de l ay

re sulting from

his la c k of dire c t c ontrol ove r the inve stiga tor. Fina lly , Appe l la n t’ s invita tion for the C ourt to go diving for pre judic e is insuffic ie nt. Unite d State s v . Graf , 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th C ir. 2010) (finding tha t c onc lusory
and pa ssing a

rgum e nts “ not supporte d by c ita t ions to the

re c ord or to c a se a

uthority
are g e ne ra lly

de e m e d wa ive d” ). Shac k l ing Dur ing T r ial. A distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to shac kle a de fe nda nt during tria l is re vie w e d for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . C a zare s , 788 F.3d 956, 963 (9th C ir. 2015); s e e also J one s v . Me y e r , 899 F.2d 883, 884–85 (9th C i r. 1990). C ontra

ry to Appe lla

n t’ s c onte ntion, “we hav e ne ve r he ld, a nd we re fuse to hold now, tha

t a tria l c ourt m

u st c onduc t a he aring a

nd m ake findings be fore orde ring tha

t a de fe n da nt be sha c kle d.” C

azare s , 788 F.3d a

t 965. None of the argum e nts on this issue is pe rsua sive . “ The [tria l] judge ha s wide disc re tion to de c ide whe the r a de fe nda nt who ha s a

prope nsity

for viole nc e pose s a se c urity risk a nd wa rrants inc re a se d se c urity

m e a sure s.” Morgan v
. Bunne ll , 24 F.3d 49, 51 (9th C i r. 1994) (pe r c uriam ). The distric t c ourt’ s finding of c om pe lling c irc um sta

nc e s— ba se d on (1) the nature of Appe lla nt’ s c h arge s a s
5 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7involving thre ats a nd viole nc e ; (2) Appe lla

n t’ s le ngthy

c rim i na l history ; (3) Appe l la n t’ s possible

m e nta l insta

bility ; a n d (4) the c lose proxim ity in whic h he would be to his a lle ge d

vic tim

— wa s not a n a buse of disc re t ion. Fina l ly , sha c kling only in pa dde d le g irons, dra

ping of c ounse l ta

ble to hide the le g irons, a nd bringing the

de fe nda nt in a nd out of thec ourtroom

outsidethe jury ’ s pre se nc e are

“ re a sona ble m e a sure s to prote c t [the ] pre sum ption of innoc e nc e ” c onstituting the

“ a s se ss[m e nt] and utiliz [iz ation] of le s s re stric tive a lte rnat ive s[,] ” id. at 51–52, whic h re nde r Appe lla

nt’ s a sse rtion of pre

judic e ba se d on sha c kling “ m e ritle ss,” Unite d State s v . Fe rnande

z , 388 F.3d 1199, 1245 (9th C ir. 2004). De nial of Assor te d othe r Pr e tr ial M otions. “ Wh e n a n a c c use d m ana ge s his own de fe nse , he re l inquishe s, a s a pure ly fa c tua l m atte r, m any

of the tra ditiona l be ne fits a ssoc iate d with theright to c ounse l.” Fare tta v . C alifornia , 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975). Ye t we have re c ogniz e d tha t “ [a ] n inc arc e ra te d

de fe n da nt m a y not
m e aningfully e xe rc i se his right to re pre se nt him s e lf without a c c e ss to la w books, witne s se s, or othe r tools to pre pa re a de fe nse .” M

ilton v

. Morris , 767 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th C ir. 1985). In this c a se , howe ve r, Appe l la nt re c e i ve d “ re a sona

ble
a c c e ss” to his le ga l m ate ria ls. U nite d State

s v . Brugnara , 856 F.3d 1198, 1211 (9th C ir. 2017). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t he ha d re c e i ve d a ll
re le va nt disc ove ry

m ate ria ls. W

hile Appe lla

nt a lso a lle ge d lim ite d

a c c e ss to online
re sourc e s, the issue s at tria l we re prim arily fa c tua l, a nd sta n d -by c ounse l, who
6 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7fre que ntly

worke d with Appe lla

nt, wa s a va ila ble to a ssist if a ske d. As a whole , the
re c o rd re ve a ls Appe lla

nt re c e i v e d “ unpre c e de nte d ” a c c e ss to re sourc e s at the two fa c i litie s he wa s inc arc e ra t e d in during the le a d-up to tria l. Adm i ssion of Rule413 E vide nc e Constitutionalityof Rule 413. Appe lla nt a rgue s R ule 413 of the Fe de ra l R ule s of Evide nc e is unc onstitutiona l a s a viola tion of dueproc e ss a

nd e qua l prote c tion. W e c onc lude R ule 413 doe s not viola

te due proc e s s. The introduc tion of prope nsity

or c ha ra c te r e vide nc e “ c an am ount to a c onstitutiona

l viola tion only if its pre judic ia l e ffe c t fa

r outwe ighs its proba

tive va l ue .” Unite d State

s v . Le May , 260 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th C ir. 2001). “ As long a s the prote c tions of R ule 403
re m a in in pla c e to e nsure tha t pote ntia lly

de va sta ting e vide nc e of littleprobative
va lue will not re a c h the jury , the right to a fa ir tria l re m a ins a de quate ly
sa fe gua rde d.” Id. Nor doe s R

u le 413 viola

te e qua l prote c tion. B e c a use R ule 413 doe s “ not burde n a funda m e nta l right, a

n d be c a use se x offe nde rs a

re not a suspe c t c la ss,” R ule 413 is “ c o n stitutiona

l if it be ars a

re a sona b le re lationship to a

le gitim ate gove rnm e nt inte re st.” Se e id. at 1031. R u le 413 furthe rs the le gitim ate gove rnm e nt inte re st in prose c uting c rim e e ffe c tive ly “ by a llowing prose c utors to introduc e re le va

nt e vide nc e to he lp c onvic t se x offe n de rs.” Id. Adm ission of the Pr i o r -B ad-Ac ts E v ide nc e Unde r Rule s 413 and 403. A

7 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to a dm it e vide nc e is re vie we d for a buse of disc re t ion. Unite d State s v . Blac k stone , 56 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th C ir. 1995). Appe lla n t a rgue s the e vide n c e wa s im

prope rly a dm itte d unde r R

ule 413 be c a

use : (1) it wa s a d

m itte d without a n e vide ntia

ry he aring, in c ontra dic tion of thedistric t c ourt’ s origina l in limine orde r; (2) Appe lla

nt did not re c e ive tim e ly

notic e , a s re quire d

by the rule ;
and (3) a dm i tting thee v ide n c e without a n e v ide ntia

ry he aring wa s im

prope r. Appe lla nt’ s first a

rgum e nt fa ils be c a

use in limine rulings a

re a l way s pre l im ina ry and subje c t t o re vision. Ohle r v . Unite d State s , 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000); Luc e v . Unite d State s , 469 U.S. 38, 41–42 (1984). Appe l la nt’ s se c o nd
argum e nt fa ils be c a

use he wa s give n tim e ly notic e by the Gove rnm e n t ’ s filing of its in limine

m o tion, whic h de ta ile d the e vide nc e it sought to a dm it, m ore tha

n 100 da y s be fore tria l. The purpose of R ule 413’ s notic e re quire m e nt is to “ prote c t[]
a ga inst surprise

and a llow[] the de fe nda

nt to inve stiga

te and pre pa

re
c ross-e xam ination.” Unite d State s v . Enjady , 134 F.3d 1427, 1433 (10th C ir. 1998). Appe lla

nt “ re c e ive d a ll of the notic e tha t [R ule 413] re quire s” a s “ the re [wa s] no possibility

tha t De fe nda nt wa s unfa irly

surprise d by

the e v ide nc e .” Unite d State s v . Mandok

a , 869 F.3d 448, 455 (6th C ir. 2017). Appe lla nt’ s fina l
argum e nt a lso fa ils be c a

u s e an e vide ntia ry he aring outside

the pre se nc e of the jury is not re q uire d. Se eUnite d State

s v . Hinton , 31 F.3d 817, 823 (9th C ir. 1994); Unite d State s v . Hadle y , 918 F.2d 848, 851 (9th C ir. 1990). Furthe r, the thre shold

8 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7pre p onde ranc y re quire m e n t for a dm ission of prior-bad-a c t s e vide nc e c an be ba se d
on e vide n c e proffe re d by

the gove rnm e nt othe r tha n live witne ss te stim ony , Le May , 260 F.3d a

t 1023–24, e spe c ia lly

whe re , a s he re , the prospe c tive witne ss te stim ony is c o rroborate d. Enjady , 134 F.3d a t 1343. Appe lla nt furthe r argue s tha

t in a pply ing the fa c tors a

rtic ulate d by

this c ourt in Le May for e va luating prior ba d a c ts of se xua l m isc onduc t pursua nt to m aking a R ule 403 de t e rm ination thedistric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion. This C ourt finds the

tria l judge did not a

buse he r disc re tion in finding the sim ila rity fa c tor we ighe d in fa

vor of a dm ission. The

following fa c ts support the tria l judge ’ s c onc l usion: (1) the a lle gat ions a ll c o nsiste d of forc ible va gina l a nd
ana l ra pe ; (2) Appe lla

nt e s ta blishe d a ra p port with the

vic tim s be fore a ssa

ulting the m ; (3) Appe lla

nt use d thre ats a

nd forc e to ga in c om

plia nc e ; (4) the wom e n he
a ssa ulte d we re a ll of simila

r he ight, a ge , a

nd phy sic a l a

ppe aranc e ; (5) two of the
wom e n— a s we ll a s a

third diffe re nt witne ss— d e sc ribe d Appe lla nt forc ing the m

to pe rform viole nt ora l se x on him to the point of vom

iting or ne arly vom iting; a nd (6) e a c h wom an re porte d

be ing in fe ar of Appe l la

nt tha t c a use d he r not to report his a buse or atte m

pt to e s c a pe . The tria l judge a lso did not a buse he r disc re tion in finding the te m pora l proxim ity fa c tor we ighe d in fa

vor of a dm ission or wa s ne utra l. W hile the tim e la pse in this c a s e is signific ant, the num be r of sim ila

ritie s be twe e n

the a lle gations
9 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7he re and the prior a c ts a dm itte d unde r R ule 413 support the

tria l judge ’ s a d

m ission of the e vide nc e . Fina lly , a s long a s the distric t c ourt prope rly c o nside rs a

nd ba la nc e s the five Le May fa c tors, tha

t c ourt ha s not a

b use d its disc re t ion in a dm itting R u le 413
e vide nc e unde r R

u le 403. Pr ose c utor ial M isc onduc t Whe re a de fe nda nt fa ils to ra ise the issue of prose c utoria l m isc onduc t at the tria l c ourt, the sta

n da rd of re vie w is pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . W a shington , 462 F.3d 1124, 1136 (9th C ir. 2006). TheGove rnm e nt’ s lim ite d a nd infre que nt de sc ription of Appe lla

nt’ s c onduc t a s “ ra

pe ” or “ se xua l a ssa

ult” whe n que stioning witne s se s wa s not e rror, le t a lone pla in e rror. “ [T] he re is no ruleof e vide nc e or
e thic s tha t forbids theprose c utor from re fe rring to thec rim e by its c om m on na m e whe n e xam ining a

witne s s. The re is no rulere quiring the prose c utor to usea
e uphe m ism

for it or pre fa c e it by

the word ‘ a lle ge d.’ ” Guam v . Torre , 68 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th C ir. 1995). Failur e to Pe r m it Inspe c tion of E vide nc e Evide nc e m

ust be disc lose d to a

de fe nda nt if it is “

m ate ria l,” m e a

ning “ the re is a re a sona ble proba bility tha t, ha d the e vide n c e be e n disc lose d to the de fe nse , the
re sults of the

proc e e ding would ha

ve be e n diffe re nt.” Unite d State s v . Bagle y , 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985); se e also Fe d. R . C rim . P. 16(a )(1)(E). Appe lla nt a rgue s he
1 0 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7wa s e ntitle d to a c c e ss to a n iPod use d

by the vic tim s while in his c ustody
. Howe ve r, Appe l la

nt wa s provide d se ve ra l c opie s of a fore nsic C D c opy

of the data
c onta ine d on the iPod, a

nd he e ve n use d e xc e rpts from this da ta re port a t tria l. Appe l la n t c ould not point to a

ny ba sis to c onc lude phy sic a l a c c e ss to theiPod would ha ve le d to a

ny furthe r re le v ant e vide nc e not a l re a dy c onta i ne d in the fore nsic c opy . Phy sic a l a c c e ss to theiPod wa s the re fore not m ate ria l be c a use the re is no re a sona

ble proba bility suc h a c c e ss would ha

ve le d to a diffe re n t re sult in his
c a se . Suffic i e nc y of the E vide nc e Whe n c ha l le nge d ba se d

on e vide ntia

ry suffic ie nc y , a

jury ’ s ve rdic t is
a ffirm e d “ if, vie wing the e vide n c e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution, any ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of thec rim e be y ond a re a sona

b le doubt.” Unite d State

s v . Te mk in , 797 F.3d 682, 688 (9th C ir. 2015) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). Appe lla

nt ha s wa ive d his a

rgum e nts on this issue by fa i ling to support the

m with c ita tions to c a se la

w or the re c ord. Graf

, 610 F.3d a

t 1166; se e also Fe d. R . App. P. 28(a )(8)(A). None the le ss, the e vide nc e suffic ie ntly supports the

jury ve rdic t. Appe lla

nt
argue s the re c ord fa ils to e sta blish heform e d the inte nt to c o m m it a ny c rim e of a
se xua l nature prior to c rossing sta te line s, a s re quire d unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2423. Proving inte nt only re quire s tha t the ille ga l se xua l a c tivity be “ one of the dom ina

nt
1 1 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7purpose s ” of the inte rstat e tra nsporta tion. Unite d State

s v . K i nslow , 860 F.2d 963, 967 (9th C i r. 1988), disapprov e d of on other grounds by Unite d State

s v . Brac k e e n , 969 F.2d 827, 829 (9th C ir. 1992) (e n ba nc ) (pe r c uriam ). B oth of thevic tim s te stifie d tha

t Appe lla n t be ga n se xua lly

a ssa ulting the fe m a le vic tim

prior to le aving C a lifornia , a s we ll a s a fte r re a c hing Ne va da . Whe re se xua l m isc onduc t oc c urs both be fore and a fte r c rossing sta te line s, “ [a ] ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c o uld ha ve found tha t one of the dom ina

nt purpose s [of the inte rstate tra nsporta tion wa s] im m ora l, se xua l purpose s.” Id. at 967–68. Appe lla nt a lso a rgue s tha t the e v ide nc e in the re c ord indic ating his vic tim s
we re ofte n by

the m se lve s, give n m one y , a nd ha d a de gre e of fre e dom

an d the
a bility to le ave pre c lude s kidna

pping a s a

m atte r of la

w. Howe ve r, the pla i n la ngua ge of the sta

tute doe s not re q

uire phy sic a l re stra int; kidna pping c an a lso be
e ffe c tuat e d by psy c hologic a l m e ans. Se e 18 U.S.C
. § 1201(a ); se e also United State s v . W e sson , 779 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th C ir. 1986) (pe r c uriam ). The vic tim s te stifie d tha

t Appe lla n t lie d a bout his willingne s s to givethe m a ride to ge t the m

to go with him
. The y

te stifie d the y

we re re pe ate dly

thre ate n e d a

nd ofte n ke pt
se pa ra te d— from

e a c h othe r and from

the i r posse ssions— and tha t fe ar of re ta lia

tion ke pt the m from running a

w ay . On a

t le a st one oc c a sion, onevic tim wa s phy sic a lly
atta c k e d . The vic t im s a

ppe are d te rrifie d of Appe lla

n t whe n the y

we re fina lly
re sc ue d. And theGove rnm e n t’ s e xpe rt witne ss e xpla ine d why som e fre e d om

of
1 2 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7m ove m e nt a nd the a ppa re n t a bility to le ave one ’ s c a

ptor did not pre c lude re stra int
and c ontrol through psy

c hologic a l m e ans. The e vide n c e wa s thus suffic ie nt to support Appe lla

nt’ s c onvic tion on a ll thre e c ounts. M otion fora Ne w T r ial De nia l of a m otion for a

ne w tria l is re vie w e d for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . Inzunza , 638 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th C i r. 2011). De fe nda nt a rgue s, ba se d on his a

rgum e nts pre v iously

a d va nc e d, tha t de nia l of his m otion for a ne w tria l wa s a

n a buse of disc re tion. Aga in, Appe lla nt ha s wa ive d his a

rgum e n ts on this issue by fa i ling to support the

m with c ita tions to c a se la

w or the re c ord. Graf

, 610 F.3d a

t 1166; se e also Fe d. R . App. P. 28(a )(8)(A). Furthe r, Appe lla nt’ s
argum e nts on this issue

are c um ulative of— and sta

nd or fa ll on them e rits of— the
argum e nts a lre a d

y a dva nc e d in som e of his othe r issue s on a ppe a l. He a lso ra ise s
c um ulat ive e rror a s a

se pa ra te issue on a

ppe a l. Thus, this issue

pre se nts no
a dditiona l or indepe nde nt grounds on which to re c o nside r his c onvic tion. Cum ulativeE r r or

“ [C ] um ulative e rror is sim

ply ina pplic a ble ” to c la im s of e rror the c o urt
re je c ts. Fe rnande

z , 388 F.3d a

t 1256. Absent m

ultiple e rrors, the re is nothing to
c um ulat e , a nd re ve rsa l is not wa

rran te d. S

e e Unite d State

s v . Sage r , 227 F.3d 1138, 1149 (9th C ir. 2000). For the re a s ons sta

t e d a bove , we AFFIRMAppe lla n t’ s c onvic tions.
1 3 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7AFFIRM E D

1 4 1 6
- 1 0 3 9 7