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. NNA ALPHA ONUOHA, AKA Na a Alpha Onuoha , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50399

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00676-B R O-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 B e ve rly R e id O’ C onne ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2017 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd STEEH, *** Distric t Judge
.



# F IL ED MAR 31 2017 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 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 Ge orge C aram

Ste e h III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Nna Onuoha a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting the G ove rnm e nt’ s re que st to involunta rily a dm iniste r psy c hotropic m e dic at ion unde r Se ll v . Unite d State s , 539 U.S. 166 (2003). This is Onuoha ’ s se c o nd a ppe a l of an orde r by

the distric t c ourt pe rm itting involunta ry m e dic ation. In thefirst
a ppe a l, we va c at e d the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a nd re m ande d

on a n ope n re c ord. Se e Unite d State s v . Onuoha , 820 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th C ir. 2016). W e he ld tha t the first S e ll fa c t or—

whe the r im

p orta nt gove rnm e nta l inte re sts a re at sta ke in prose c uting thede fe nda

nt for the c ha

rge d offe nse
—

wa s sa t isfie d, but tha

t the fourth Se ll fa c tor—

w he the r the propose d tre atm e nt pla n wa s in the patie nt’ s be st
m e dic a l inte re sts in light of his m e dic a l c ondition—

wa s not sa

tisfie d. Se e id. at 1054. On re m a

nd, the distric t

c ourt he ld a

he aring a n d a ga in gra

n te d the Gove rnm e nt’ s S

e ll m otion. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C § 1291, a nd we
a ffirm
. Onuoha c ha lle n ge s the distric t c ourt’ s se c ond Se ll orde r only a s to the first fa c t or. Whe the r this fa c t or is m e t is prim arily a le g a l que stion, so we

re vie w it de
novo. Unite d State

s v . Ruiz-Gax iola , 623 F.3d 684, 693 (9th C ir. 2010). Onuoha
c onte nds tha

t while his offe nse wa s “ se rious” e n o ugh to support a n im p orta nt gove rnm e nta l inte re st in prose c ution, his offense ’ s Se nte nc ing Guide l ine s ra nge of 27 to 33 m onths m ake s it le ss se rious tha n othe r “ se rious” offe n se s tha t c an sa tisfy
2the first Se ll fa c tor. W e re c ogniz e d in our prior opinion tha t 27 to 33 months “ is lowe r tha n a ny range we have pre viously he ld to be indic ative of a ‘ se rious’ c rim e unde r the first Se ll

fa c tor.” Onuoha , 820 F.3d a t 1055. B ut we a l so m a de c le ar that “ the Guide line s ra

nge is only

the sta rting point in de

te rm ining whe the r the gove rnm e nt ha s an im

porta nt inte re s t in prose c ution.” Id. W e pla c e d he avy e m pha sis on the fa c t tha

t Onuoha ’ s a c tions we re re a sona bly pe rc e ive d a s thre ats of te rrorism , a

nd tha t the y ne c e ssita te d a signific ant se c urity re sponse . Se e id. The se c onside ra tions outwe ighe d the re lative ly low Guide line s ra

nge . Se e id. at 1055–56. Onuoha ha s not pe rsua d e d us tha t we should c onside r the se inte re sts diffe re ntly
now. Onuoha

ne xt a rgue s tha t the tim e he ha s spe nt in c ustody sinc e his a

rre st
m itiga te s the Gove rnm e n t’ s inte re st in prose c ution. It is true tha t Onuoha ha s be e n in fe de ra l c ustody sinc e Se pte m be r 11, 2013. At the

tim e of our e arlie r de c ision, Onuoha ha d se rve d longe r tha n the m inim

um Guide l ine s ra

nge of 27 m onths. Id.
a t 1056. He ha s now se rve d a bove the Guide line s m a xim um of 33 m onths. B ut
e ve n if Onuoha ’ s a d ditiona l tim e in c ustody te nds to le sse n the Gove rnm e n t’ s inte re s t in prose c ution, se eSe ll , 539 U.S. a t 180, none the le ss it doe s not nullify tha t im porta nt inte re st. As e xpla ine d in our e arlie r opinion, the Gove rnm e nt’ s inte re st in obta ining a

c onvic tion e xte nds not only to inc a pa c ita ting Onuoha , but a lso to
3de te rring othe rs from m a king simila

r thre ats. Onuoha , 820 F.3d at 1056–57. This inte re s t in ge ne ra l de te rre nc e holds firm re ga rdle ss of the le ngth of Onuoha ’ s pre t ria l de te ntion. W e note tha t ge ne ra lly de te rring othe rs from m aking thre ats of viole nc e re late d to the nation’ s tra nsporta tion infra struc ture re m a ins a n im porta nt goa l for soc ie ty . The re is a se pa rate re a son be y ond ga ining c onvic tion a nd de te rring othe rs for c o nc luding tha

t im porta n t gove rnm e nta l inte re sts a

re at sta ke . W i th a
c onvic tion c om e s the possibility of supe rvise d re le a se , whic h m ay be c ritic a l to pre v e n ting Onuoha

from m aking simila

r thre at s in the future
. Se e id. at 1056. Prose c uting Onuoha

thus be ne fits not only

soc ie ty but possibly Onuoha

him se lf, who without supe

rvision m a

y be c om e e m

b roile d in a

nothe r suc h c ontrove rsy . Fina lly , Onuoha

a sse rts tha

t the Gove rnm e nt’ s inte re s t in prose c ution is
m itiga te d be c a use his offe nse wa s a

produc t of his m e nta l illne ss. The re is support in the re c ord for the notion tha t Onuoha ’ s thre ats we re drive n, at le a st in pa rt, by
m e nta l illne ss. And “ the fa c t tha t a de fe nda nt’ s m e nta l disorde r c ontribute d to his offe nse m ay

we ake n the gove rnm e nt’ s inte re st in prose c uting him .” Unite d State s v . Gille nw ate r , 749 F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th C ir. 2014). Howe ve r, in c e rta in c a se s,

“ the link be twe e n [a

de fe nda nt’ s] m e nta l disorde r and his c h arge d c rim e s m ake s his prose c ution a ll the m ore im porta nt.” Id. That a

ppe ars to be the c a se he re , 4whe re a

bse nt prose c ution a

nd tre atm e nt, the re is a

risk Onuoha

m ay re p e at sim ila

r thre a ts in thefuture
. W e c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t the Gove rnm e nt m e t its burde n on the first Se ll fa c tor. AFFIRM E D.

5