N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DONNY LOVE, SR ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50085

D.C . No. 3:10-C R -02418-M M M M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M a rgare t M . M c K e own, C irc uit Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 1, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAEZ a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SILVER , Se nior Distric t Judge
. ** 

# F IL ED
M AR 07 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.
*** M arga

re t M . M c K e own, C irc u it Judge , for the Ninth C irc uit C ourt of Appe a ls, sitting in the U n ite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , by

de signa tion

.Early

in the m o rning of M ay

4, 2008, a

bom b de t onate d outsidethe m a in
e ntra nc e to the Edwa

rd J. Sc hwa

rtz Unite d State s C o urthouse in downtown Sa n Die go. Donny

Love Sr. wa s subse q

ue ntly c onvic te d of te n c o unts re late d to the bom bing, a nd he a ppe a ls. W e a ffirm

e xc e pt a s to C ount 10, whic h we re ve rse . Love argue s the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing his pre tria l m otion to c ha nge
ve nue from

the c ourthousewhe re the bom bing oc c urre d. W e re v i e w the de nia l of a
m otion to tra

nsfe r ve nue for a

buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . She rw ood, 98 F.3d 402, 410 (9th C ir. 1996). Loveargue s pre judic e should bepre sum e d be c a use the c ourthouse wa s the c rim e sc e ne . W e hav e re c ogniz e d pre sum e d pre judic e m ay
a pply in c e rta in “ e xtre m e ” c a se s of pre judic ia l pre t

ria l public ity , Hay e

s v . Ay e rs , 632 F.3d 500, 508 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Sk i lling v . Unite d State

s , 561 U.S. 358, 381 (2010)), but we

have not a d dre sse d this ty pe of pre sum e d pre

judic e c la i m . Only two c a s e s ha

ve done so, Unite d State

s v . N e ttle s , 476 F.3d 508 (7th C ir. 2007) (a ffirm ing de nia l of tra nsfe r m otion whe re bom

bing ha d no c ha nc e of
suc c e ss) a nd State v . Baumruk

, 85 S.W .3d 644 (M o. 2002) (re ve rsing de n ia l of transfe r m otion whe re m a ss shooting took pla c e insidethe c ourthouse ). W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r this pre sum e d pre judic e c la im

c ould be via

ble a s a ge ne ra l
m atte r be c a

use the c irc um sta

nc e s of the bom

bing we re insuffic i e nt to pre sum e tha t

2jurors would be pre judic e d. Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing the m otion. Love ne x t argue s the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing his rep e at e d m otions for
ne w c ounse l. W e re vie wa de nia l of a

m otion for ne w c ounse l for a b use of disc re tion a

nd c o n side r: (1) the tim e line ss of Love ’ s m otions, (2) the a de qua c y of the d istric t c o urt’ s inquirie s, a nd (3) the e xte nt of the c onflic t be twe e n Love and his
c ounse l. Unite d State

s v . Smith , 282 F.3d 758, 763 (9th C ir. 2002). Only an

“ e x te nsive , irre c onc ila

ble c o nflic t” re quire s substitution of c ounse l. Id . Love ’ s prim ary argum e nt re lat e s to thea de qua c y of the inquiry

c onduc te d by

the distric t
c ourt on his first m

otion, spe c ific a lly , its de n ia l of the m otion without a he aring. 1 Howe ve r, “ the fa ilure to c onduc t a he aring is not by

itse lf an a buse of disc re tion.” Id . at 764.

“ [T] he nature of our re vie w re quire s tha t we a c c ord the distric t c ourt suffic i e nt la

titudeto c onduc t the prope r inquiry unde r the c irc um sta nc e s of e a c h
c a se .” Unite d State

s v . W alk e r , 915 F.2d 480, 483 (9th C ir. 1990), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Unite d State s v . N o rdby , 225 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th C ir. 2000). He re , the distric t c ourt obse rve d Love and his c ounse l’ s inte ra c tions be fore and

1 The Unite d Stat e s doe s not dispute this first mo tion, file d

Se pte m be r 22, 2010 (nunc pro tunc to Se p t e m be r 1), wa s tim e ly
.

3throughout tria l, a n d he ld a post-tria l he aring a ddre ssing thec irc um sta nc e s of e a c h
m otion for ne w c ounse l. Though “the tria l judge m i ght ha ve m a de a m ore thorough inquiry into thesubsta

nc e of [Love ] ’ s a lle ge d c onflic t with c ounse l, [Love ] ’ s de sc ription of the

proble m and the judge ’ s own obse rvations provide d a suffic ie nt ba sis for re a c hing a

n inform e d de c ision.” Unite d State s v . Mc C le ndon , 782 F.2d 785, 789 (9th C ir. 1986). There fusa l to a ppoint ne w c ounse l wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion. Love a lso ra ise s two m

ultiplic i ty argum e nts. B e c a

use he did not ra i se the m be low, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Zalapa , 509 F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th C ir. 2007). “ Pla in e rror is so c le ar-c ut, so obvious, a c om pe te nt distric t judge should bea

ble to a void it without be

ne fit of obje c tion.” Id . (quoting Unite d State s
v . Smith , 424 F.3d 992, 1002 (9th C ir. 2005)). First, Love argue s his c onvic tions on C ounts 6 a nd 7, both under 18 U.S.C . § 844(h), a re m ultiplic itous be c a

u se the y re late to the sa

m e e xplosive . Assum ing we would a gre e on de novo re vie w, Love c annot show pla in e rror be c a

use this C ourt ha s ne v e r he l d two c onvic t i ons unde r § 844(h) for the sa m e e xplosive
m ultiplic itous, nor doe s our pre c e de n t othe rwise m a k e that c onc lusion c le ar-c ut or obvious. C

f
. Unite d State

s v . Gonzale

z Be c e rra , 784 F.3d 514, 518 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ An e rror c annot be pla in whe re the re is no c ontrolling a uthority on point a

nd 4whe re the m o st c lose ly ana logous pre c e de nt le a ds to c onflic ting re sults.” ) (quoting Unite d State s v . DeLa Fue nte , 353 F.3d 766, 769 (9th C ir. 2003)). Se c ond, Loveargue s his § 844(h) c o nvic tions a re m ultiplic itous of his
c onvic tion on C o unt 5, unde r 18 U.S.C . § 924(c ). B e c a use the se c ounts a

rise unde r diffe re nt sta

tute s, “ t he te st to bea

pplie d . . . is whe the r e a c h provision re quire s proof of a fa c t whic h the othe r doe s not.” Bloc k burge r v . Unite d State

s , 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). Se c tion § 924(c ) is limite d to useof a fire arm in a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” rathe r tha

n in “ any fe lony ” a s re q

uire d by § 844(h). Sinc e a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” ne e d not be a

fe l ony and “ any fe lony ” inc lude s non-viole nt c rim e s, e a c h sta tute re q uire s proof of a

fa c t the othe r doe s not. Thus, the c onvic tions a

re not
m ultiplic itous under the B loc k burge r te st. Fina lly , the Unite d State s c onc e de s Love ’ s c onvic tion on C ount 10 m ust be
re ve rse d be c a

use we he ld in Unite d State s v . Ermoian , 752 F.3d 1165, 1172 (9th C ir. 2013) tha

t a n FB I inve stiga

tion is not a

n “ o ffic ia l proc e e ding” for the purpose of 18 U.S.C . § 1512(c )(2). W e the re fore re ve rse Love ’ s c o nvic tion on C o unt 10
and re m and for re s e nte nc ing. AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , RE M ANDE D FO R RE SE NT E NCING

.

5