NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM E R IC A, ) No. 17-30157 ) Pla intiff-Appe lle e , ) D.C . No. 1:16-c r-00115-B LW -1 ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) STEVEN W . C LYNE, ) ) De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt. ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho B . Ly nn W inm ill, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 10, 2018 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Ste ve n W . C ly

ne a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for de a ling in fire arm s without a



# FIL ED OCT 24 2018 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).lic e nse 1 a s we ll a s his se nte nc e for tha t offe nse and for m aking a fa lse sta t e m e nt during thepurc ha se of fire arm s. 2 W e a ffirm . (1) C ly ne first a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it e xc lude d c e rta in e vide nc e tha

t supporte d his de fe nse to the c h arge of willfully 3 de a ling in fire arm s without a lic e nse . 4 His de fe nse wa s tha t he did not understa

nd tha t his a c tions we re unla wful, 5 and tha

t the lic e nse a

pplic ation form

wa s writte n in a fa shion tha t c a use d his c onfusion in tha

t re spe c t. He a sse rts tha

t out-of-c o urt sta

te m e nts by gove rnm e nt a ge nts c onstitute d a dm issions 6 by the gove rnm e nt tha

t the a pplic ation form wa s inde e d m i sle a ding. W e will a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t sta te m e nts by gove rnm e nt a ge nts within the sc ope of the ir a ge nc y

are not tre ate d diffe re ntly from those of othe rs in a

princ ipa l-a ge nt re lationship. 7 Howe ve r, we a g re e with the

1 Se e 18 U.S.C . § 922(a )(1)(A); se e also id. § 924(a )(1)(D). 2 Se e id. § 924(a )(1)(A). 3 Id. § 924(a )(1)(D). 4Id. § 922(a )(1)(A). 5 Se e Bry an v . Unite d State s , 524 U.S. 184, 189–96, 118 S. C t. 1939, 1944–47, 141 L. Ed. 2d 197 (1998).

6 Se e Fe d . R . Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). 7 Se e , e .g. , N igro v . Se ars, Roe b uc k

& C o. , 784 F.3d 495, 498 (9th C ir. 2015); Se a-Land Se rv ., Inc . v . Loze n Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 821 (9th C i r. 2002); se e (c ontinue d...) 2distric t c o urt tha t t he “ p robative va lue ” of the e vide nc e in que s tion wa s

“ substa n tia lly outwe ighe d by a da

nge r of . . . unfa ir pre

judic e , c onfusing theissue s, m isle a ding the jury , [an d] undue de l ay .” Fe d. R . Evid. 403. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion 8 whe n it de c ide d tha t the propose d

e vide n c e 9 ha d m inim a l probat ive va lue , a

nd tha t the like lihood of de la

y and c o nfusion wa s substa ntia l. Se e U nite d State

s v . Espinoza-Baza , 647 F.3d 1182, 1189–90 (9th C ir. 2011); se e also U nite d State

s v . W iggan , 700 F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th C ir. 2012). In a ny e ve nt, e ve n without tha

t e vide nc e , C ly

ne wa s we ll a

b le to pre se nt his c onfusion de fe nse , and did so. M ore o ve r, the othe r e vide nc e of his knowle dge tha t he wa s viola

ting the l ic e nsing la

w wa s ove rwhe lm ing. (2) C ly ne ne xt a sse rts tha

t the re wa s pre

judic ia l Doy le 1 0 e rror whe n the gove rnm e nt sugge ste d in its c losing a rgum e nts tha

t C ly ne ’ s c la im

of c onfusion wa s not be lie v a

ble be c a use he did not ra ise it whe n he spoke to a gove rnm e nt a ge nt.

7 (...c ontinue d) also U nite d State

s v . Bonds , 608 F.3d 495, 504 (9th C ir. 2010); Thomas v . IN S , 35 F.3d 1332, 1339–40 (9th C i r. 1994); U n ite d State

s v . Van Griffin , 874 F.2d 634, 638 (9th C i r. 1989).

8 Se e Unite d State

s v . C rosby , 75 F.3d 1343, 1346 (9th C ir. 1996); s e e also Unite d State s v . Hink s on , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba n c ). 9 Writte n guida

nc e and a le tte r an swe ring a

propounde d que stion. 1 0Doy lev . Ohio , 426 U.S. 610, 617–19, 96 S. C t. 2240, 2244–45, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976). 3W e disa gre e . In ge n e ra l, the gove rnm e nt c annot c om m e nt upon a

de fe nda nt’ s post Miranda 1 1 sile nc e . Se e Doy le , 426 U.S. a t 617–19, 96 S. C t. at 2244–45. Howe ve r, C ly

ne did not re m a in e ntire ly sile nt— he gave a re a son tha

t he did not ne e d a lic e nse (that is, thefire arm s we re pre viously use d by him), whic h wa s quite diffe re nt from

the c o nfusion re a son he te stifie d to a t tria l . Thus, thegove rnm e nt c ould, a n d did, c ross-e xam ine him a bout thec ha

nge in his re a son. Tha

t wa s prope r que stioning. Se e Ande rson v . C harle s , 447 U.S. 404, 408, 100 S. Ct . 2180, 2182, 65 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1980) (pe r c uriam ); Unite d

State s v . Gome z , 725 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th C ir. 2013); U

nite d State

s v . Oc hoa-Sanc he

z , 676 F.2d 1283, 1286–87 (9th C ir. 1982). W

h ile the gove rnm e nt’ s c losing a rgum e nt did not spe c ific a lly m e ntion theinc onsiste n c y itse lf, in c o nte xt— inc luding the c ross-e xam ination on the p re vious da

y — that wa s its purport ra

the r tha n “ sile nc e ” a s suc h. M ore o ve r, C ly ne fa ile d to providee vide nc e in the distric t c ourt of pre c ise ly whe n he une quivoc a lly

a s ke d for c ounse l or othe rwise invoke d his right to rem a in sile nt. As a re sult, e ve n if the gove rnm e nt’ s c losing a rgum e nt did re fe re nc e C ly ne ’ s sile nc e , we are una

ble to hold tha

t Doy le e rror e ve n oc c urre d. Se e Unite d State s v . Ramire z-Estrada , 749 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th C ir. 2014). Fina lly , in light of the

1 1 Miranda v . Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 467–73, 86 S. C t. 1602, 1624–27, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). 4othe r ove rwhe lm ing e v ide nc e in the c a se and the la c k of stre ss put upon the point at c losing a

rgum e nt, a

ny e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. Se e Unite d State

s v . Bushy he ad , 270 F.3d 905, 913–14 (9th C ir. 2001). (3) C ly ne the n a rgue s tha t e ve n if the individual e rrors we re ha rm le ss, c um ulat ive e rror re quire s re ve rsa l of his c onvic t ion. W e disa gre e be c a use we are satisfie d tha

t the re wa s no e rror. (4) Fina lly , C ly

ne a sse rts tha

t he wa s se nte nc e d “ ba s e d on c le arly e rrone ous fa c ts,” be c a

use the distric t c ourt inc orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t C l yne kne w, or m ust ha ve known, tha

t m any of the fire arm s he sold e nde d up in theha n ds of prohibite d posse ssors. He argue s tha t his se nte nc e m

ust, the re fore , be se t a side . Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba n c ). W e disa gre e . From the e vide nc e be fore it, thedistric t c ourt c ould pla usibly de te rm ine tha

t C ly ne m ust ha ve known tha

t at le a st som e of the fire arm s he wa s se lling to othe rs we re be ing pla c e d in thewrong ha nds. Se e Unite d State

s v . Spangle , 626 F.3d 488, 497 (9th C ir. 2010)
. AFFIRM ED.

5