FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 19, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15104 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -001 76 -C R -B -S U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D A N I E L L A F I T T E D U M O N D E , a .k .a . D a n ie l P ru itt S p e n c e r , a .k .a . D a n ie l L a f

f ite D u m o n d e , a .k .a . D a n ie l S p e n c e r , a .k .a . D a n n y , a .k .a . P a u l M o o r e , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ N o. 05- 12349 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -001 76 -C R -B -S U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D A N I E L L A F I T T E D U M O N D E , a .k .a . D a n ie l L a f

f ite D u m o n d e , a .k .a . P a u l M o o r e , e tc ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.Dumonde asserts, admittedly for the first time on appeal, that the g overnment committed 1 misconduct and the district c ourt erred in admitting evidenceof a check imprinting machine found in his car be causethat machine was not found in the ca r duringthe first sea

rch. B eca use Dumonde raises this issue for thefirst time in his reply brief, hehas aba

ndoned the issue. See U

nited States v. Fiallo-Jac ome , 8 74F .2 d 1 47 9, 14 81 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 9) (noting that a

n a pp e lla nt in a c rimin al c a se may not raise a

n issue for the f

irst time in a reply

appellatebrief) . 2 ________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma ( Ju l y 19, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T hi s opi ni on consol i dat es and d ec i des tw o app ea l s per fe ct ed by D ani el La f i tt e D u mo n d e . D u mo n d e , ap p e a r i n g p r o s e , ap p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n f r o m a b e n c h tr ia l, in w h ic h h e a ls o p r o c e e d e d p r o s e , f o ru tte r in g ac o u n te r f

e it s e c u r ity , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 513( a ) a nd 2. I n hi s f i r s tappe a l , N o. 04- 15104, D um on de ar gu es thathi s a rr es tw as i l l egal because i tw as fr audu l ent l y obt ai ned w i tho utprob abl e c ause . D um on de al so as se rt s thatthe di stri ctcourt 1 unc ons t i tut i ona l l y l i m i t e d the c om pul s ory pr oc e s s by de ny i ng hi s r e que s tt o s ubpoe naJ udge W a tki ns , S he r i f f’ s I nt e rna l A f

f a i r s S gt . M oor e , a nd J e f f e r s on C ou nty S heri ff

M i ke H al e. N ext , D um on de ar gu es thathi s c od ef endant , W al ker, com m i tt ed perj ury a ttri al , and h i s t es t i m on y s ho ul d n othave been adm i tt ed b e c a u s e it w a s u n c o rr o b o r a te d a n d w a s in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y .On a pp e al, t heg ov ernment a

rgue s th at w elac k ju

ri sdic tio n o ver t

heargum ent s rai se d in 2 this appeal. Dumonde did perfec t his appeal via his sec ond and four th notices of appe al, and there fore , we have jurisdiction to review the issues challeng ed here. Se eUn ited S tates v. Cu rry , 760 F.2d 1079, 1079- 80 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (holding that a premature noti ce of appe al made before judgment and convic tion are entere d is effe ctive to perfect an appeal as o f th e date the sentenc e wa s entere d as the judgment). 3 In se cond appeal , N o. 05 -123 49 , D um on de ar gu es thatthe ac coun tnu m bers on the c ount e r f

e i tc he c k w e r e non- e xi s t e nt , a nd the r e f or e , the c he c k c oul d notbe d raw n o n an y o rg an i zat i o n w i th i n th e m ean i n g o f th e st atu t e. D u m o n d e al so 2 a s s e r t s tha tJ udge B l a c kburn of the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve r e c us e d he r s e l f f r om the proceedi ng s bec ause she w as “ ou tra geou sl y bi as ed. ” L as t l y, D um on de ar gu es th ath e w as w ro n g l y rem o v ed fro m st at e t o fed eral cu st o d y w i th o u tan y au th o ri ty, and thathe w as deni ed du e proces s of l aw because he w as re qu i re d t o g i ve a ha ndw r i t i ng s a m pl e be f or e the gr a nd j ury , a nd he w a s f or c e d t o appe a rbe f

or e the g r a n d ju ry in ap r is o n s tr ip e u n if o rm a n d le g s h a c k le s . I. M o ti o n to S u p p ress I n r e vi e w i ng ade ni a l of am ot i on t o s uppr e s s , w e r e vi e w f orc l e a re rr orthe d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s , a n d w e r e v ie w d e n o v o its ap p lic a tio n o f la w to th o s e f a c ts . U ni te d State s v . L

y ons , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . M or e ove r , “ a l l f

a c t s a r e c ons true d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the pr e va i l i ng party bel ow . ” U

ni te d State s v . B e r v aldi , 2 2 6 F .3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . D u m o n d e c la im s th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t a rr e s te d h im w ith o u t p r o b ab le c a u s e .4

“P ro b ab le ca u se to ar re st ex ists if th e f ac ts an d circ u m stan ce s w ith in th e o ff icer ’s kn ow l edge, of w hi ch he has r ea sonabl y trustw orthy i nform at i on , w ou l d cause a prud entpers on t o b el i eve, un der the ci rc um st ance s s ho w n, thatthe suspec thas com m i tt ed or i s c om m i tt i ng an offe nse. ” O r tega v . Chr is t i an , 85 F . 3d 1521, 1525 (11th C i r. 19 96 ). T h e reco rd sh o w s th atth e g o v ern m en th ad p ro b ab l e cau se t o o b t ai n an arrest w a rr a ntf orD um onde . B y the t i m e l a w e nf or c e m e nts oughta n a rr e s tw a rr a ntf or D u m o n d e th e y k n e w o f a n d w e r e in p o s s e s s io n o f s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld have l ed a prudentpers on t o b el i eve thatD um on de w as i nv ol ved i n the subj ec t o f f e n s e . I d. F or exam pl e, the offi ce rs kn ew thatph on e c al l s t o the vi ct i m had ori gi nat ed fr om D um on de’ s hom e. A l so ori gi nat i ng fr om D um on de’ s hom e w er e phone c a l l s t o the T e nne s s e e j e w e l ry s t or e w he r e the vi c t i m ’ s r i ng w a s s ol d. T he j e w e l ry s t or e ow ne rha d i de nt i f i e d D um onde outof

aphot ogr aphi c l i ne up a s the pers on w ho sol d h i m the ri ng . T he st ore ow ner f urther s t at ed thatD um on de had u s e d th e n a m e D a n ie l S p e n c e r , o n e o f h is s e v e r a l a lia s e s . I n lig h t o f th e s e f a c ts d em o n stra ti n g p ro b ab le ca u se , w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f D u m o n d e’s m o t i o n t o su p p ress. II. C o m p u l so ry P ro cess T he S i xth A m endm entprot ec t s adefe nd ant ’ s r i gh tt o h ave “ com pu l sory5

p r o c e s s f o ro b ta in in g w itn e s s e s in h is f a v o r .” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . V I .; se e U . S. v. H u rn , 368 F . 3d 1359, 1362 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . H ow e ve r , “ the S i xth A m e ndm e nt doe s notby i t s t e rm s gr a ntt o ac r i m i na l de f e nda ntthe r i ghtt o s e c ur e the att endance and t es t i m on y of a ny and al l w i tness es : i tgu ar ant ee s hi m ‘ com pu l sory pr oc e s s f orobt a i ni ng w i tne s s e s i n his f av or . ’ ” U

ni te d State s v . V

ale nz ue la- B e rnal , 4 5 8 U . S. 8 5 8 , 8 6 7 , 1 0 2 S. Ct . 3 4 4 0 , 3 4 4 6 , 7 3 L. Ed . 2 d 1 1 9 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ( q u o t i n g U . S. C o n s t. a m e n d . V I ) . A d e f e n d a n t m u s t, th e r e f

o r e , “a t le a s t m a k e s o m e p la u s ib le s h o w in g o f

h o w [ th e w itn e s s ’s ] te s tim o n yw o u ld [ b e ] b o th m a te r ia l a n d f a v o r ab le t o h i s def

ense . ” Id . T h e r e c o r d h e r e d o e s n o t c o m p e l ar e v e r s a l o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e f

u s a l to i ss ue a s ub po ena f

or Judg e W atki ns, S gt . M oo re , or S heri ff H al e. D um on de had f a ile d to p r e s e n t a n y e v id e n c e th a t th e r e q u e s te d w itn e s s e s w o u ld te s tif y f a v o r ab ly t o h i s def

ense . H e pre se nt ed no evi dence thatJudg e W atki ns’ s s i gn ature w as forged. L i kew i se , w i th regard t o S gt . M oo re , D um on de di d n otsubm i tany s up po rt f orhi s a s s e r t i on tha tS gt . M oor e ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s ne e de d t o s how apa tt e rn of o ffi cer m i sco n d u ct . R eg ard i n g S h eri ff H al e, D u m o n d e fai l ed t o p resen th i s req u est f o rH a le ’s s u b p o e n ab e f

o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w h e n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in q u ir e d in to D u m o n d e ’s s u b p o e n ar e q u e s ts . E v e n if D u m o n d e h a d m a d e th e r e q u e s t k n o w n to th e d i stri ctco u rt , d en yi n g th e req u estw o u l d n o th av e b een erro n eo u s, b ecau se6

D u m o n d e f

a ile d to m a k e “s o m e p la u s ib le s h o w in g ” th a t H a le ’s te s tim o n y w o u ld ha ve be e n f

a vor abl e t o hi s de f

e ns e . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i rm the de ni a l of D u m o n d e ’s r e q u e s ts f

o rs u b p o e n a s . II I. W i tn es s C re d i b i l i ty “T h e c r e d ib ility o f

aw itn e s s is in th e p r o v in c e o f th e f a c tf in d e ra n d [ w e ] w ill no tordi nari l y r evi ew the fa ct fi nd er ’ s det erm i nat i on of cr edi bi l i ty. ” U ni ted Stat es v . C ope land , 20 F . 3d 412, 413 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . F ur the rm or e , the di stri ctcourt ’ s c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s a re ent i t l ed t o d ef er ence and i t s f

ac tual f in d in g s w ill b e a c c e p te d , u n le s s c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . U ni te d State s v . H

ol land , 874 F . 2 d 1 4 7 0 , 1 4 7 3 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 9 ). In ad d i t i o n , ev en w h ere a g o v ern m en tw i tn ess t e s t i f i e s w i th i m m uni ty , i ti s the r e s pons i bi l i ty of the tr i e rof

f a c tt o de t e rm i ne the tru th f u ln e s s o f w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n y . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . H

e w itt , 663 F . 2d 1381, 13 85 (11th C i r. 19 81 ). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n adm i tt i ng W al ker’ s t es t i m on y. A l tho ug h at tr i a l W a l ke ra dm i tt e d t o c om m i tt i ng pe r j ury , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound hi s t e s t i m ony t o b e truthful . T he di stri ctcourtkn ew of W al ker’ s i nv ol vem enti n the subj ec t offe nse, hi s a dm i tt ed perj ury, and the fa ctthathe t es t i fi ed i n exchang e f or a subst ant i al as si st ance departure. N everthel es s, the courtdet erm i ned thatW al ker w as cr edi bl e a nd thatm uch ci rc um st ant i al evi dence s up po rt ed hi s t es t i m on y, w hi ch7

w a s w ith in its p r o v in c e a s th e f a c tf in d e rin ab e n c h tr ia l. Se e C ope land , 20 F . 3d at 41 3. In addi t i on , D um on de do es no toffe r a ny supp ortfor hi s a ss ert i on that W a lk e r ’s te s tim o n y w a s in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f irm in th is r e s p e c t. I V. I ndi c t m e nt W e r e v ie w f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to d is m is s a n in d ic tm e n t. U ni te d State s v . P i e lago , 13 5 F . 3d 70 3, 70 7 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) .I t is af

e d e r a l o f f e n s e to m a k e , u tte r , o rp o s s e s s , w ith th e in te n t to d e c e iv e , a f o r g e ds e c u r ity o f

a n o r g a n iz a tio n . 1 8 U .S .C . § 5 1 3 ( a ) . T h e s ta tu te b r o a d ly de f i ne s a n “ or ga ni z a t i on” a s “ al e ga l e nt i ty , othe rtha n agove rnm e nt , e s t abl i s he d or o r g a n i z e d f

o ra n y p u rp o s e , a n d i n c l u d e s ac o rp o r a t i o n , c o mp a n y , a s s o c i a t i o n , f i rm, pa r tne r s hi p, j oi nts t oc k c om pa ny , f ounda t i on, i ns t i tut i on, s oc i e ty , uni on, ora ny other a ss oci at i on of pers on s w hi ch op er at es i n o r the ac t i vi t i es of w hi ch af fe ct in te r s ta te o rf

o r e ig n c o m m e r c e [ .]” 1 8 U .S .C . § 5 1 3 ( c ) ( 4 ) . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y d en yin g D u m o n d e’s m o t i o n s t o d i sm i ss th e i n d i ctm en t . E v i d en ce sh o w ed th atth e ch eck w as a c ount e r f e i t e d s e c ur i ty of

a n of f i c i a l R e gi ons B a nk c he c k. T he gove rnm e nt e s t abl i s he d tha tR e gi ons B a nk, ope r a t i ng i n a tl e a s tthi r t e e n s t a t e s of the uni on, a nd8

I P S , by vi r tue of

i t s a gr e e m e nta nd c oope r a t i on w i th the ba nk, w e r e or ga ni z a t i ons u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 5 1 3 ( c ) ( 4 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f irm in th is r e s p e c t. V . R e c u s al O r d in a r ily w e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e ’s d e c is io n n o t to r e c u s e h e r s e lf f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . See U

ni ted Stat es v. B ai ley , 1 7 5 F .3 d 9 6 6 , 9 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . T w o s t a tut e s gove rn r e c us a l – 28 U . S . C . §§ 144 a nd 455. See H am m v. Me m be rs of

B d. of R ege nt s of State of Fla. , 7 0 8 F .2 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . U nd er§ 1 44 , a party c an fi l e a“ t i m el y a nd suff i ci entaf fi davi t ” c om pl ai ni ng of a tri al j ud ge’ s per sonal bi as . S ec t i on 45 5(a) i nstruct s afe dera l j ud ge t o d i squal i fy he r s e l f i f “ [ he r ] i m pa r t i a l i ty m i ghtr e a s onabl y be que s t i one d, ” a nd § 455( b) re qu i re s di squal i fi ca t i on un der s peci fi c c i rc um st ance s, i ncl ud i ng havi ng pers on al bi a s a ga i ns tapa r ty orpe r s ona l know l e dge of di s put e d f

a c t s , e xpr e s s i ng a n opi ni on aboutthe c a s e a s agove rnm e nte m pl oy e e , hol di ng af i na nc i a l i nt e r e s ti n the c o n tr o v e r s y , o rh a v in g as p o u s e o rr e la tiv e in v o lv e d w ith o n e o f th e p a r tie s . F or re cusa l t o o cc ur un der § 45 5(a) , “ w e m usk ask w hether a n o bj ec t i ve, di s i nt e r e s t e d, l a y obs e rve rf ul l y i nf orm e d of the f a c t s unde r l y i ng the gr ounds on w h ich re cu sa l w as so u g h t w o u lden tertain a s ig n ifican t d o u b t ab o u t th e ju d g e’s i m part i al i ty. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . P a tti , 337 F . 3d 1317, 1322 ( 11th C i r . 2003)9

(i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). D i squal i fi ca t i on un der § 45 5(b) “ i s c l ea r; on ce i thas be e n e s t abl i s he d tha tone of the e num e r a t e d c i r c um s t a nc e s e xi s t s , the r e c a n be no di sput e abo utthe prop ri ety of r ec usal . ” I d. a t1321- 22. T o di s qua l i f y aj udge u n d er § 4 5 5 (a) an d (b )(1 ), th e b i as “ m u stst em fro m ex traj u d i ci al so u rces, u n l ess th e ju d g e ’s a c ts d e m o n s tr a te s u c h p e rv a s iv e b ia s a n d p r e ju d ic e th a t it u n f

a ir ly prej ud i ce s one of the part i es . ” B ai ley , 175 F . 3d a t968 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ [ A ] dve r s e rul i ngs a l one do notpr ovi de apa r ty w i th aba s i s f orhol di ng thatthe court ’ s i m part i al i ty i s i n d ou bt . ” B y rne v . N ez hat , 261 F . 3d 1075, 1103 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . I n a ddi t i on, a“ [ di s tr i c tc our t ] j udge ha s w i de di s c r e t i on i n m a na gi ng the proceedi ng s. ” U

ni te d State s v . H

aw ki ns , 661 F . 2d 436, 450 ( 5th C i r . U ni tB N ov. 1 9 8 1 ) . “[ S ]h e m a y c o m m e n t o n th e e v id e n c e , m a y q u e s tio n w itn e s s e s a n d e lic it f a c t s noty e ta dduc e d orc l a r i f y thos e pr e vi ous l y pr e s e nt e d, a nd m a y m a i nt a i n the pace of the tri al by i nt errupt i ng or cutt i ng off c ou nsel as a m att erof di sc re t i on . ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . M or e ove r , w e a r e “ c ogni z a ntof the m a xi m tha tthe tri al j ud ge has broad di sc re t i on i n h andl i ng the tri al and thatthe re vi ew i ng court shou l d res tra i n i t se l f f

rom i nt erpo si ng i t s opi ni on abse nta c l ea r s ho w i ng of abuse. ” U ni te d State s v . D e L a V

ega , 91 3 F . 2d 86 1, 86 7 (11 th C i r. 19 90 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed).10

T h e d i stri ctco u rtj u d g e h ere d i d n o tab u se h er d i scret i o n i n fai l i n g t o recu se he r s e l f . D um onde a c c us e d the j udge of ha vi ng s om e pe r s ona l bi a s a ga i ns thi m , but he never pres ent ed any f ac t s t o sup po rthi s c l ai m . In thi s c as e, D um on de proceeded p r o s e in ab e n c h tr ia l; th u s , th e ju d g e n e c e s s a r ily h a d to b e c o m e in v o lv e d in m an ag i n g th e p ro ceed i n g s. A l tho ug h D um on de’ s s ent ence exce eded the gu i del i ne ra ng e, the se nt ence w a s l e s s tha n the s t a tut ory m a xi m um , a nd a ts e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tj udge e x p la in e d in d e ta il h e rr e a s o n s f o rs e n te n c in g h im ab o v e th e r e c o m m e n d e d r a n g e . F orthe s e r e a s ons , the r e w a s no e vi de nc e f r om w hi c h a n obj e c t i ve , di s i nt e r e s t e d, l ayob se rverful l y i nform ed of the fa ct s und er l yi ng the grou nd s on w hi ch re cusa l w as so u g h tw o u l d en t ert ai n a si g n i fi can td o u b tab o u tth e j u d g e’ s i m p art i al i ty. See P a tti , 3 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 2 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f irm in th is r e s p e c t. V I. P rose cu tori al M i sc on d u ct A ny chal l enges bas ed on prosec ut ori al m i sc on du ctbefore the grand j ury a re r e v ie w e d u n d e rah a rm le s s - e rr o rs ta n d a r d . B an k of N ova Scot i a v. U

ni ted Stat es , 487 U . S . 250, 254, 108 S . C t . 2369, 2373, 101 L . E d. 2d 228 ( 1988) . U nde rthe ha rm l e s s - e rr ors t a nda r d, ar e ve r s a l i s r e qui r e d “ onl y i f i ti s e s t abl i s he d tha tthe v io la tio n s u b s ta n tia lly in f lu e n c e d th e g r a n d ju ry ’s d e c is io n to in d ic t, o rif th e r e is gr a ve doubttha tthe de c i s i on t o i ndi c tw a s f r e e f r om the s ubs t a nt i a l i nf

l ue nc e of11

such vi ol at i on s. ” I

d. at25 6 , 10 8 S . C t . A t23 74 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). T o th e e x te n t th a t D u m o n d e c h a lle n g e s e v e n ts th a t o c c u rr e d w h ile h e w a s in s ta te c u s to d y , p r e s u m ab ly o n s ta te c h a r g e s , w e d o n o t a d d r e s s h is c la im s . D um on de ar gu es thati tw as i m prop erfor hi m t o app ea r bef ore the grand j ury w e a r in g ap r is o n u n if

o rm a n d le g s h a c k le s . See Es te l le v . Wi l l i a ms , 425 U . S . 501, 5 0 4 , 9 6 S . C t. 1 6 9 1 , 1 6 9 3 , 4 8 L . E d . 2 d 1 2 6 (1 9 7 6 ) ( h o ld in g th at a d ef en d an t’ s ap p e a r a n c e in p r is o n a ttir e a t tr ia l s e r io u s ly c o m p r o m is e s th e d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to th e p r e s u m p tio n o f

in n o c e n c e b a s ic to th e a d v e r s a ry s y s te m ) . H o w e v e r , th e ru le in Es te lle doe s notappl y he r e be c a us e D um onde w a s notade f e nda nton tr i a l w he n he a l l e ge dl y w a s f

or c e d t o w e a rhi s pr i s on uni f orm a nd l e g s ha c kl e s . E ve n a s s um i ng ar gu endo thatan error di d o cc ur du ri ng the grand j ury procee di ng , any e rr or w as h a rm le s s b e c a u s e s u f

f ic ie n t p r o b ab le c a u s e s u p p o r te d D u m o n d e ’s in d ic tm e n t. See B a n k o f N o v a Sc o tia , 4 8 7 U . S . at2 5 4 , 1 0 8 S . C t . at2 3 7 3 . F o r th ese reaso n s, D u m o n d e h a s f

a ile d to e s tab lis h ad e n ia l o f h is r ig h t to d u e p r o c e s s . V I I . C on c l u s i on F i n d i n g n o erro r, w e affi rm D u m o n d e’ s co n v i ct i o n an d sen t en ce. W e al so d e n y D u m o n d e ’s “M o tio n f o rI m m e d ia te R e v e r s a l.” A F F I R M E D .