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. LAR ON DAR

RELL C AR TER , AKA B irdd, AKA Ga

rde na Pim p in B irdd, AKA Garr B irdd, AKA Pi B i rdd, AKA Pi Pim pin B irdd, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50271

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00297-VAP-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia V irginia A. Phillips, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 27, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd HER NANDEZ, ** Distric t Judge
. Laron C a

rte r wa s c o nvic te d of se ve n c ounts of viola

ting 18 U.S.C . § 1591
and se v e n c ounts of viola

ting 18 U.S.C . § 2423(a). C arte r a ppe a ls his c onvic tions 

# F IL ED NOV 2 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.and se nte nc e . In a n opinion c onc urre ntly

file d with this me m orandum disposition,
we va c ate his c onvic t ions on two of the c ounts (C ounts 13 a

n d 14) be c a use the y we re obta ine d in viola

tion of C arte r’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to c onfronta tion. W e a lso re m and to the distric t c ourt for re se nte n c ing. He re , we re vie w C arte r’ s va rious c ha lle nge s to his c onvic tions on the re m a ining c ounts (C ounts 1–12). W e a ffirm his c onvic t ions on the se c ounts. 1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly re j e c te d C arte r’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t C o unts 11
and 12 a re ba rre d by the Double Je opa

rdy C la use . Although the se c ounts a re ba se d on the sa m e c onduc t unde rly ing his Ne va da sta te c onvic tion for pa

nde ring, the

“ dua l -sove re ignty

doc trine ” provide s tha

t the Double Je opa

rdy C la u se doe s not ba

r suc c e ssive sta

te an d fe de ra l prose c utions “ for the sa m e c o urse of c onduc t.” Pue rto Ric o v . Sanc he

z Valle , 136 S. C t. 1863, 1869–71 (2016) (quoting H e ath v
. Alabama , 474 U.S. 82, 88 (1985)). C arte r a sks us to re je c t the dua l-sove re ignty doc trine , but we c annot ignorebinding Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt. Se e Bosse v . Ok lahoma , 137 S. C t. 1, 2 (2016) (pe r c uriam ). 2. W e do not re a c h the m e rits of C arte r’ s argum e nt tha t the prose c ution of C ounts 1–10 wa s ba

rre d by the sta tute of lim ita

tions, 18 U.S.C . § 3282(a), be c a use C arte r fa i le d to ra ise the sta tute of lim ita

tions in the

distric t c ourt. He

“ c a nnot suc c e ssfully

ra ise the sta

tute -of-lim ita

tions de fe nse . . . for the first tim e on 2a

ppe a l.” Musac c hio v
. Unite d State s , 136 S. C t. 709, 718 (2016); se e Unite d State s v . Lo , 231 F.3d 471, 480–81 (9th C ir. 2000). W e a lso de c line C a rte r’ s re que s t— m a de for the first tim e in his reply brie f— that we c onside r his sta

tute of lim ita tions a rgum e nt a s a

c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l. “ [A] rgum e nts not ra ise d by a pa rty in its opening brie f are de e m e d wa ive d,” U nite d State

s v . K ing , 257 F.3d 1013, 1029 n.5 (9th C ir. 2001) (c ita tion omitte d ), and in a

ny e ve nt we se e no re a son to dep a

rt from our “ ge ne ra l rule ” that “ we do not re vie w c ha lle nge s to thee ffe c tive ne ss of de fe nse c ounse l on dire c t a ppe a l,” Unite d State

s v . Liu , 731 F.3d 982, 995 (9th C ir. 2013). 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing C a rte r’ s m otion to dism

iss on grounds of pre -indic t m e nt de la y . 1 Se e Unite d State

s v . Bark e n , 412 F.3d 1131, 1134 (9th C ir. 2005). To obta in re lie f for pre -indic tm e nt de la y unde r e ithe r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt’ s Due Proc e ss C la use or Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 48(b), the de fe nda nt m ust show “ ‘ a c tua l, non-spe c ulative pre j udic e from

the de la y ,’ m e an ing proof tha

t de m onstra

te s e xa c tly

how the loss of
e vide nc e or witne sse s wa s pre judic ia l.” Id. (c ita

t ion om itte d); Unite d

State s v .

1 C arte r wa ive d his right to obje c t to a ny post-indic t

m e nt de la y unde r the Sixth Am e ndm e nt’ s Spe e dy Tria l C la use by spe c ific a lly

disa vowing it in the distric t c o urt, a

nd by stipula

ting to ne arly

a ll of thede la

y be twe e n his indic t

m e nt and tria l. Se eBark

e r v . W ingo , 407 U.S. 514, 529 (1972).

3J

iang , 214 F.3d 1099, 1101 (9th C ir. 2000). C arte r ha s not ide ntifie d a ny a c tua l pre j udic e ; his spe c ulative a sse rtion tha t one witne ss m ight ha

ve forgotte n

the pre c ise route he trave le d from C a lifornia

to Ne va da

is insuffic ie nt. Se e Unite d State s v . C orona-Ve rbe ra , 509 F.3d 1105, 1112–13 (9th C ir. 2007). Nor ha s C arte r ide ntifie d “ fla grant prose c utoria l m isc onduc t” tha t would c om

pe l the e xe rc ise of the d istric t c o urt’ s supe rvisory powe rs. Unite d State

s v . C hapman , 524 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th C ir. 2008). 4. W e re

je c t C arte r’ s a

rgum e nts prote sting thejoinde r of the c ounts for tria l . First, C arte r wa ive d his a rgum e nt re ga

rding se ve ranc e of the c ounts unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 14(a ) by fa iling to re ne w his se ve ranc e m otion
at the c lose of e vide nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Sullivan , 522 F.3d 967, 981 (9th C ir. 2008). Se c ond, C arte r forfe ite d his a rgum e nt re ga rding m isjoinde r unde r Fe d e ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 8(a ) by fa iling to me ntion R

ule 8(a ) in his se ve ra

nc e m otion. S

e e Unite d State

s v . Smith , 795 F.2d 841, 850 (9th C ir. 1986). W e thus
re vie w for pla in e rror— i.e ., a n e rror that is “ c le ar or obvious, ra t he r tha n subje c t to re a s ona ble dispute ,” Puc k

e tt v . Unite d State

s , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)— a n d find
no suc h e rror he re . C ounts 1–12 may re a sona bly be se e n a s be ing “ of the sa m e or sim ila r c ha ra c te r,” Fe d. R . C rim . P. 8(a ), a s the y a lle g e that C arte r c o m

m itte d the
4sam e two sta tutory offe nse s a ga inst e a c h of the vic tim s, e a c h of the vic tim s wa s a m inor a t the tim e of the offe nse , a nd e a c h of the c ha

rge s arose out of e ve nts oc c urring a

t le a st in pa

rt in thesa

m e two c ountie s in C a lifornia
. Se e Unite d State s v . J aw ara , 474 F.3d 565, 576–78 (9th C ir. 2007); Unite d State s v . Rousse a u , 257 F.3d 925, 932 (9th C ir. 2001). Thesim i la rity of the offe nse s c an be “ re a sona bly infe rre d” without ha

ving to “ e nga ge in infe re ntia l gy m na stic s or re sort to im pla usible le ve ls of a

bstra c tion.” J

aw ara , 474 F.3d a

t 578. And e ve n a ssum ing that the c ounts we re im

prope rly joine d , C arte r ha s not shown “ a c tua l pre judic e ,” a s the d istric t c o urt instruc t e d the jury to tre at e a c h

c ount sepa

rate ly , a nd the e vide nc e for e a c h c ount wa s distinc t . S e e id. at 579–81. Fina lly , C arte r’ s re troa c t ive m isjoinde r a rgum e nt fa ils for la c k of

“ c o m pe lling pre

j udic e .” Unite d State

s v . Lazare nk

o , 564 F.3d 1026, 1043 (9th C ir. 2009).
* * * For the fore going re a sons, we a ffirm C a rte r’ s c o nvic tions on C o unts 1–12. And for the re a sons give n in thea c c om pa ny ing opinion, we va c ate the c onvic tions on C o unts 13 a

nd 14 a n d re m an d to thedistric t c ourt for re se nte nc ing. AFFIRM E D IN PART , VACAT E D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.

5