N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
UNIT E D ST A T E S O F AM E RICA , Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. L ASH AUN RO M AN NO SE , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30326

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-02086-EFS-2
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Edwa rd F. She a , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 2, 2016 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : K O Z INSKI , O ’SCANNL AIN and G O UL D , C irc uit Judge s. 1. R om a n Nose signe d a

pre tria l stipula

tion indic ating tha

t he wa s “ a

n India n a s tha t te rm is use d in 18 Unite d State s C ode 1153.” Give n tha t R om an Nose a dm itte d he wa s a

n India n a s de fine d by

the sta tute , a “ rat iona l trie r of fa c t 

# FIL ED
FEB 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).pa ge 2

c ould ha v e found the[India

n sta tus] e le m e nt[] of the c rim e be y ond a re a sona ble doubt.” Ja c kson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); se e 18 U.S.C . §§ 113(a )(7), 1153 (c ha

rge d offe nse s); se e a l so Unite d State s v. Gwa l tne y , 790 F.2d 1378, 1386 (9th C ir. 1986) (disc ussing stipula tions in c rim ina l tria ls). R om an Nose ’ s c h a lle nge to the suffic ie nc y of the gove rnm e nt’ s e vide nc e the re fore fa ils. Ac c ordingly , so too doe s his jurisdic tiona l c ha lle nge . Se e Unite d State s v. R atiga n, 351 F.3d 957, 963–64 (9th C i r. 2003) (e xpla ining tha t “ the jurisdic tiona l e le m e nt of fe d e ra l c rim e s doe s not pre se nt a pure que stion of thec ourt’ s subje c t-m atte r jurisdic tion” but ra

the r one of suffic ie nc y of the gove rnm e nt ’ s e vide nc e ).
2. R om a n Nose ha s pre se nte d no e vide nc e tha t the stipula

tion wa s not fre e ly or volunta

rily give n. W e re

je c t his a rgum e nt tha

t “ the stipula

tion itse lf provide s a suffic i e nt re c ord to e sta

blish its involunta

rine ss.” In the a

bse nc e of a

ny fa c ts sugge s ting tha

t his a dm issions were c oe rc e d or involunta ry , we c a nnot sa y tha t the introduc tion of thestipula tion wa s e rrone ous. Se e Unite d State s v. M olina , 596 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th C ir. 2010).
3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by a dm itting the c oat ha nge rs a nd te le v i sion wire s a s phy sic a l e vide nc e . Se e Unite d State s v. Edwa rds, 235 F.3d 1173, 1178–79 (9th C ir. 2000); C havira Gonz a le s v. Unite d State s , 314pa ge 3

F.2d 750, 752 (9th C ir. 1963)

. At tria l, one witne ss te stifie d tha t R om an Nose be at the v ic tim with ha nge rs a nd wire s, a

nd a nothe r witne ss te stifie d tha t the be atings
oc c urre d in theba c k be droom of the house . An FB I a ge nt te stifie d tha t she disc ove re d the ha

n ge rs a n d wire s in tha

t be droom . This te s tim ony wa s suffic ie nt to la y founda tion for thee xhibits, e sta

blish the ir re le va

nc e an d de m onstra

te the ir probat ive va lue
. 4. The distric t c ourt did not err by de c lining to instruct the jury on the c rim e of “ A ssa u lt by Striking, B e ating, or W ounding.”This le sse r offe nse is not inc l ude d within the

c ha rge d offe nse of “ A ssa

u lt R e sulting in Substa

ntia l B odily Injury ” be c a

use it c o nta ins a c onduc t e le m e nt tha t is not a n e le m e nt of the gre ate r offe nse . Se e Unite d State s v. Johnson, 637 F.2d 1224, 1242 n.26 (9th C ir. 1980) (noting tha

t “ [a ] s sa ult by striking, be ating, or wounding . . . . c onte m p late s som e form of c onta c t . . . whic h, stric tly spe aking, is not re quire d of a ssa u lt re sulting in
se rious bodily injury ” ), a

brogate d on othe r grounds by Sc hm uc k v. Unite d

State s, 489 U.S. 705 (1989). For this re a son, R o m an Nose wa s not e ntitle d to his propose d instruc tion on the le sse r offe nse . Se e Unite d State s v. Rive ra -Alonz o, 584 F.3d 829, 832–33 (9th C i r. 2009).pa ge 4

5. The se nte nc e im

p o se d by the distric t c ourt wa s substa ntive ly re a sona ble
. Se e Unite d State s v. Va lda vinos-Torre s, 704 F.3d 679, 692 (9th C ir. 2012). The fa c t tha t Pe re z re c e i ve d a

le sse r se nte nc e for the sam e c rim e is of no m om e nt. Pe re z ha d a sm a lle r role in the be atings a nd, unlikeR om an Nose , she a c c e pte d
re sponsibility

for he r c o n duc t . M ore ove r, the distric t judge pa id a d e quat e atte ntion to va rious fa c tors tha

t m ay have m itiga

t e d R om an Nose ’ s se nt e nc e . The distric t judge e xpre ssly

a c knowle d g e d tha

t R om an Nose ha d

e xpe rie nc e d a

diffic ult
c hildhood, but none

the le ss c onc lude d tha

t the upwa

rd de pa rture wa s justifie d by his a bhorre nt c onduc t

in this c a se . AFFIRM E D.