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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ANTHONY R

AY SHIRLEY, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10086

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-00622-R C C -JR -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R ane r C
. C ollins, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 10, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge , a nd EZR A, ** Distric t Judge
. Following a

jury tria l, Anthony

R ay Shirle y a ppe a ls his c onvic t ions on four
c ounts of a ggravate d se xua l a buse in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1153(a), 2241(a )(2) or (c ), a nd 2246(2)(B ) or (2)(C ) and two c ounts of a busive se xua l c onta c t in



# FIL ED M AY17 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 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.viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1153(a), 2244(a )(5), and 2246(3). W e re je c t the
argum e nts ra ise d in Shirle y ’ s ope ning brie f and de c line to re a c h the issue s on whic h we invite d

supple m e nta l brie fing. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm Shirle y ’ s c onvic tions. 1. The distric t c ourt a llowe d the gove rnm e nt to introduc e e vide nc e of Shirle y ’ s a lc ohol a

nd drug use on the night of the inc ide nt, whic h he c onte nds wa s
an a b use of disc re tion. Shirle y ’ s c ounse l, howe ve r, wa s the first to m e ntion the
a lc ohol a n d drug use to the jury . Any e rror is the re fore wa ive d. Se e Ohle r v . Unite d State s , 529 U.S. 753, 760 (2000); Bow oto v . C he v ron C orp. , 621 F.3d 1116, 1130 (9th C ir. 2010). 2. Shirle y ne xt c o nte n d s tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by

not
a llowing him

to introduc e a d ditiona l portions of his sta te m e nt to polic e whe n the gove rnm e nt introduc e d pa rt of it. Howe v e r, the portions tha t Shirle y wa nte d to introduc e we re c om

ple te ly unre late d to wha

t the gove rnm e nt introduc e d a n d the re wa s no risk of c o nfusing or misle a ding thejury
. Se e Unite d State s v . C o llic ott , 92 F.3d 973, 983 (9th C ir. 1996). 3. Shirle y a lso obje c ts to thegove rnm e nt’ s introduc tion of e vide nc e of his
re fusa l to volunta

rily subm it to a

buc c a l swa

b. Shirle y ’ s c o unse l, howe ve r, wa s the

2first to e lic it te stim ony a b out the re fusa l an d a

ny e rror is the re fore wa ive d. Se e Ohle r , 529 U.S. a

t 760. 4. Fina lly , Shirle y

c l a im s tha

t the distric t c o urt should ha ve give n a spolia tion instruc tion be c a

use the triba l polic e offic e rs we re una ble to bring the phy sic a l e vide nc e to tria l due to a n FB I loc kdown of thetribe ’ s e v ide nc e stora ge fa c i lity
. Howe ve r, Shirle y ne v e r a ske d for a c c e s s to the e vide nc e and a c c ordingly
wa s ne ve r im

prope rly de nie d a c c e ss, re n de ring a spolia t ion instruc tion ina p propria te . C f. Unite d State

s v . Siv illa , 714 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th C ir. 2013). 5. In a n orde r file d be fore ora l a rgum e nt, we dire c te d the pa rtie s to brie f
a dditiona l issue s tha

t we re not ra ise d be l ow or in Shirle y ’ s a ppe l late brie f. In its
re sponse , the gove rnm e nt c onc e de d (a ) that the jury

instruc t ions e rrone ously inc l ude d the “ thre at” re quire m e nt, 18 U.S.C . § 2241(a)(2), a s a n e le m e nt of C ounts Two through Four ra

t he r tha n C ount One an d tha

t this e rror wa s obvious, though it dispute d whe the r this e rror wa s pre judic ia l; 1 (b) tha

t the instruc tions e rrone ously
om i tte d the re quire m e nt (re le va nt to C ount Thre e ) tha

t the pe n e tration of the ge nita l ope ning by

a h a nd or finge r be “ w ith a

n inte nt to a

b use , hum ilia

te , ha ra ss, de gra d e , or arouse or gratify t he se xua l de sire of a

ny pe rson,” 18 U.S.C
.

1 In a ddition, wenote that the instruc tion a l lowe d the jury to c onvic t ba se d on e ithe r forc e or thre at, though forc e is a n e le m e n t unde r a

diffe re nt subse c tion, 18 U.S.C . § 2241(a)(1), tha t wa s not c h arge d in theindic tm e n t.

3§ 2246(2)(C ), though it a ga in dispute d pre

judic e ; (c ) that the jury

should ha

ve be e n instruc te d tha

t the gove rnm e nt wa s re quire d to prove tha t Shirle y pe rform e d e a c h spe c ific se xua l a c t

c ha rge d in theindic tm e nt, though it c onte n de d tha t the instruc tions a s a

whole im plic itly c onve y e d this re quire m e nt; a nd (d) tha t C ount One , a s re fle c te d in both the indic tm e nt a

nd the judgm e nt, wa s duplic i tous be c a use it c ha rge d Shirle y with viola

tions of both § 2241(a

)(2) a nd § 2241(c ), whic h de fine
se pa ra te offe nse s, 2 though thegove rnm e nt a ga in dispute d pre judic e . 3 While we hav e disc re tion to re a c h a n issue de spite a

ppe lla t e c o unse l’ s fa ilure to inc lude i t in theope ning brie f, s e e , e .g. , Zume l v . Ly nc h , 803 F.3d 463, 475 n.14 (9th C ir. 2015), we de c line to e xe rc ise tha t disc re t ion in this c a se so tha t the d istric t c o urt c an

have an opportunity

to c onside r the se issue s in thefirst insta nc e . Shirle y

m ay ra ise the m

(and a ny othe r issue s) through a

m otion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255 a sse rting ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of tria l a

nd a ppe lla te c ounse l. AFFIRM E D.

2 The gove rnm e nt a lso a

ppe ars to c onc e d e tha

t to the e xte nt C o unt One c ha rge s a viola tion of § 2241(c ), it is m

ultiplic itous with C ount Two, whic h a lso c ha rge s a viola tion of § 2241(c ) ba se d on the sa m e se xua l a c t. 3 W e note tha

t § 2241(c ) c arrie s a

m a n datory m inim um of 30 y e a rs in prison, while § 2241(a )(2) doe s not. 4