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. PER C Y LOVE III,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10066

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00306-TLN-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Troy L. Nunle y , 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
. Pe rc y

Love a ppe a l s his jury

c onvic tion a

n d se nte nc e for se x tra ffic king by forc e , fra ud, or c oe rc ion, a

nd for se x tra ffic king a

c hild, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 1591(a )(1). Love argue s tha t the distric t c ourt (1) viola t e d his public -tria l rights 

# FIL ED
N OV 21 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.by

e x c l uding his mo t

he r and siste r from the c ourtroom ; (2) insuffic i e ntly de fine d forc e and fra

ud for the jury ; (3) im

prope rly instruc t e d the jury

on the sta

n da rd for C ount Two; (4) pe rm itte d im prope r argum e nt from

the gove rnm e nt in c losing; a nd (5) infla te d his se n t e nc e . For the re a sons e xpla ine d be low, we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not err whe n it e xc lude d Love ’ s m othe r and siste r from the c ourtroom a fte r the y

te stifie d be c a

use both wom e n c ould pote ntia lly have be e n
re c a lle d a s re butta l witne sse s. The ir e xc lusion wa s the re fore prope r unde r the R ule 615 witne ss-se que stration orde r that Love ha d re que ste d
. Se e Fe d . R . Evid. 615 (“ At the re que st of a

pa rty the c ourt sha l l orde r witne sse s e xc lude d so tha t the y
c annot he ar othe r witne sse s’ te stim ony ” ); se e also United State s v . Ell , 718 F.2d 291, 293 (9th C ir. 1983) (e xpla ining R ule 615 se que strat ion orde rs still a pply a fte r
a witne ss finishe s te stify i n g). R ule 615 se que strations do not viola te the Sixth Am e ndm e nt’ s public -tria l gua rante e s. S

e e Unite d State s v . She rloc k, 962 F.2d 1349, 1356 (9th C ir. 1989) (“ The right to a public tria l [] is not a bsolute an d m

ust give wa y . . . to othe r inte re sts e sse ntia l to thefa i r a dm inistra tion of justic e ” ) (c ita tions omitte d ). Not one of Love ’ s jury

instruc tion c ha lle nge s wa rrants re ve rsa l. B e c a

use 18 U.S.C . § 1591 doe s not de fine forc e or fra ud, the distric t c ourt prope rly instruc te d the j ury to use the ordina

ry m e aning of both term s. Se e Unite d State s v . Smith , 719
2F.3d 1120, 1125 n .6 (9th C i r. 2013) (c iting In re Roman C

atholic Arc hbishop of Portland in Or. , 661 F.3d 417, 432 (9th C ir. 2011)). Furthe r, give n the
ove rwhe lm ing e vide nc e that Love use d brute forc e a ga inst his vic tim s, no
re a s ona ble juror would ha

ve b e e n c onfuse d a s to whe the r Love ’ s c onduc t m e e ts the ordina ry de finition of “ forc e .” Se e id. at 1125 (c o nc luding plain de finition of

“ forc e ” is “ viole nc e or suc h thre at or displa y of phy sic a l a ggre ssion towa rd a pe rson a s re a sona

bly inspire s fe ar of pa in, bodily ha rm , or de ath . . .” ) (quoting W e b ste r’s Third N

e w Inte rnational Dic tionary , 887, 904 (2002)). Nor wa s it e rror to de c l ine Love ’ s re que st for a una nim i ty instruc tion on C ount Two. B e c a

use the e vide nc e on C ount Two pe rta ine d to a n isola te d a nd phy sic a l atta c k, the re is no ge nuine possibility tha t Love wa s c onvic te d

on C ount Two be c a use diffe re nt jurors c onc lude d tha t he c om m itte d diffe re nt a c ts. Se e Unite d State

s v . Mic k e y , 897 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th C ir. 2018) (a ffirm ing de nia l of spe c ific una

nim i ty instruc tion on § 1591(a

) c ha rge ). Third, the distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr whe n it instruc te d the jury on C ount Two using § 1591’ s 2008 de finition of “ s e rious ha rm ,” whic h inc lude d thre a ts of nonphy sic a l ha

rm , rathe r tha

n the de finition in e ffe c t whe n Love
c om m itte d the c ha

rge d a c ts. Eve n if e rrone ous, the distric t c o urt’ s de finition
c a use d no pre

judic e be c a

use the e vide nc e on C ount Two pe rta i ne d to une quivoc a l

3phy sic a l ha

rm : The e v ide nc e showe d Love re pe ate dly

punc h e d F.W
. and thre w he r
a ga inst a wa l l
. Love ha s not shown re ve rsible e rror ba se d on the prose c utor’ s sta

te m e nt in
c losing tha

t Love is the kind of pe rson tha t ha s se x with a

14-y e ar old. B e c a

use Love did not obje c t be low, re ve rsa l is wa rrante d only

if the prose c utor’ s c om

m e n t

“ so infe c t e d

the tria l with unfa i rne ss a s to m a k e the re sulting c onvic t ion a de nia l of due proc e ss.” Se eDarde n v . W ainw right , 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986) (quoting Donne lly v . De C hristoforo , 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)). He re , vie w e d in c onte xt, the p rose c utor’ s sta

te m e nt ne ithe r unde rm ine d the funda m e nta l fa irne ss of the tria l
nor c ontribute d to a

m isc arria ge of justic e . Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err at se nte nc ing by a p ply ing both U.S.S.G. § 4B 1 .5(b)(1)’ s se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt a

nd § 4B 1.1’ s c are e r offe nde r guide line be c a use a pply ing § 4B 1.1 would not ha ve c h ange d

Love ’ s offe n se le ve l or c rim ina l history c ate gory . AFFIRM E D.

4