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. DANNY LEE SHER

W OOD, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30089

D.C . No. 3:09-c r-05810-R B L-4
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 7, 2013 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, GILM AN *** , a n d IKUTA, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED AUG 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble R ona ld Le e Gilm a

n , Se nior C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Danny Le e She rwood (“ She rwood” ) a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing his c onvic tion for c onspira c y to distribute

oxy c odone and
m e tha done , distribution of oxy c odone , posse ssion with inte nt to distribute oxy c odone , be ing a

fe lon in posse ssion of a

fire arm , a

nd be ing a fe lon in posse s sion of a

m m unition. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), R ona l d D. Ne ss, She rwood’ s a

ppointe d c o unse l at tria l a nd in this a

ppe a l, ha s file d a

m otion to withdra w a s c ounse l of re c ord. He a sse rts tha t the re is no m e rit to She rwood’ s a ppe a l. In his m otion, M r. Ne ss ide ntifie d four possible issue s tha

t a rgua bly m ight support She rwood’ s a

ppe a l, a s re quire d by A nde rs . Id. at 744. M r. Ne ss a sse rts that e a c h issue la c ks m e rit. W e a gre e . I W he n a n attorne y file s a

n Ande r s brie f, an a

ppe lla te c ourt is re quire d to
c onduc t “ a full e xam i nation of a ll the proc e e dings, to de c ide whe the r the c a se is wholly frivolous.” Id. This C ourt ha s e x am ine d the re porte r’ s tra nsc ript of the tria l , the distric t c ourt’ s e v ide ntia ry rulings, its instruc

tions to the

jury , a nd the
se nte nc ing tra

nsc ript. W e have de t e rm ine d tha t none of the following le ga l points
se t forth by

M r. Ne ss a

re “ argua ble on the ir m e rits.” Id. Furthe r, our inde pe nde nt

2re vie w of the re c ord, pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988), disc lose s no othe r grounds for re lie f. The prose c ution subm

itte d the pe rsonne l file of a pote ntia l witne ss, la

w e nforc e m e nt offic e r Este va n Sanc he z , for a

n in c a m e ra inspe c tion, a s re quire d by Unite d State s v . He nthorn , 931 F.3d 29, 30–31 (9th C ir. 1990). Afte r inspe c ting the p e rsonne l file , the distric t c ourt orde re d tha t the prose c ut ion produc e the file to de fe nse c ounse l. The c ourt a lso issue d a prote c tive orde r lim iting thedisc losure of the m a te ria l c onta i ne d in the file . The re c ord de m onstra te s tha t the prose c ution a

nd the d istric t c o urt fa i thfully c om plie d with this C ourt’ s de c ision in He n thorn
. At tria l, de fe nse c ounse l c ha lle nge d the a dm issibility of the propose d te stim ony of Offic e r Sanc he z and re lat e d de m onstra

tive M ic rosoft Powe r Point slide s on the ground tha

t the y we re not re le va

nt. The prose c ution inform e d the
c ourt tha t the purpose of Offic e r Sanc he z ’ s te s tim o ny an d the pre se ntation of the Powe r Point slide s “ is tha t y ou c annot se ll the se drugs outside of the c l ose d sy ste m , and we have a

c lose d sy ste m

be c a use the se drugs a

re highly subje c te d to a

buse .” The distric t c ourt ove rrule d de fe nse c ounse l’ s obje c tion to Offic e r Sanc he z ’ s te stim ony and re late d Powe r Point slide s. Offic e r Sanc he z wa s not c a lle d a s a witne s s nor is the re any

indic a tion tha

t the Powe r Point e vide nc e wa s pre s e nte d to

3the j ury

by any witne ss. Ac c o rdingly , the distric t c ourt’ s ruling on the propose d te stim ony of Offic e r Sanc he z did not re sult in a ny e rror. The distric t c ourt de nie d She rwood’ s re que s t to instruc t the jury on the de finition of the te rm

“ i n furthe ranc e of a

c rim e ” a s se t forth in R e que ste d Instruc tion No. 3. The

jury a c q uitte d She rwood of C ount 32, whic h c h arge d him with posse ssion of two fire arm s in furthe ranc e of a drug tra ffic king c rim e . The re fore , whe the r the distric t c ourt e rre d in re j e c ting She rwood’ s propose d instruc tion is moot. The re c ord shows tha

t the distric t c ourt de nie d

She rwood’ s m otion to dism iss C ounts 33 a

nd 34 of theindic tm e nt, whic h c ha rge d him with posse ssion of
a fire arm and a

m m unition tha

t ha d tra ve le d through intersta

te c om m e rc e . In support of this m

otion, de fe n se c ounse l a

rgue d that the prose c ution ha d fa ile d to pre s e nt e v ide nc e tha

t She rwood wa s involve d in shipping or tra nsporting a

fire arm or am m unition through inte

rstate c om

m e rc e . In Barre tt v . Unite d State s , 423 U.S. 212 (1976), theSupre m e C ourt he ld tha t 18 U.S.C . § 922(h) doe s not re quire the prose c ution to prove that the de fe nda nt tra nsporte d a fire arm

in inte rstate
c om m e rc e . Id. a t 225. A pe rson is guilty of tha t c rim e if he re c e ive s a fire arm tha t pre v iously

wa s shippe d or tra

nsporte d in inte rstate c om m e rc e by any o ne . Id. at

4216–17. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not err in re

je c ting She rwood’ s m otion to dism iss C ounts 33 a

nd 34. II She rwood’ s the ory

of de fe nse at tria l wa s tha t the e vide nc e wa s insuffic ie nt to pe rsua de a

ra tiona l trie r of fa c t tha

t he wa s guilty

be y ond a re a sona

ble doubt of
c onspira c y

to distribute

oxy c odone and m e tha done . The e vide nc e a d duc e d at tria l inc l ude d thre e c ontrolle d buy s from She rwood by

gove rnm e nt a ge nts for oxy c odone pills. Agen ts a lso re c ove re d a la rge am ount of c a sh, a

fire arm , a

nd
am m unition from

She rwood’ s re side nc e . None of this e vide nc e wa s c ha lle nge d on
a ppe a l. W he n vie we d in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution, this evide nc e is suffic ie nt to de m o nstra te tha t a ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould ha v e found She rwood guilty be y ond a re a sona ble doubt. J

ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (“ [T] he re le v ant que stion is whe the r, a fte r vie wing the e v ide nc e in the light m ost favora ble to the prose c ution, a ny 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 s ona ble doubt.” ) (e m

pha sis in origina l)). C onc lusion B a se d on our inde

pe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord, we find “ no nonfrivolous issue for a

ppe a l.” Pe nson , 488 U.S. a t 80. In a n orde r file d on M ay 22, 2013, we
5instruc te d She rwood tha t he c ould file a

pro se supple m e nta l brie f in support of his
a ppe a l by July 1, 2013. Heha s fa ile d to do so. M r. Ne ss’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D
. The distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt of c onvic tion is AFFIRM E D
.

6