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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C HANGA LAKE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10179

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-00499-C RB -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, IKUTA, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. C ha nga Lake a ppe a ls his jury c onvic tion for be ing a fe lon in posse ssion of a fire arm in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1). La ke argue s the distric t c ourt e rre d in (1) fa iling to allow him to a rgue la c k of finge rprint e v ide nc e at c losing 

# F IL ED
MAY15 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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).argum e nt, (2) fa iling to suppre ss e vide nc e , (3) fa iling to re a d ba c k the e n tire

te stim ony of a witne ss, a

nd (4) fa iling to find a

viola tion of his right to a

spe e dy tria l . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

the distric t
c ourt. 1. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion to lim it La ke ’ s c losing a

rgum e nt
re ga rding finge rprint e vide nc e for an a buse of disc re tion, Unite d State s v . Lazare nk o , 564 F.3d 1026, 1043 (9th C ir. 2009), a lthough the issue of whe the r this lim ita tion viola te d La ke ’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to c ounse l is re v ie w e d de novo. Unite d State s v . Doe , 705 F.3d 1134, 1149 (9th C ir. 2013). W hile a “ c omple te de nial of sum m ation viola

te s the [Sixth Am e ndm e nt] Assista nc e of C ounse l C la use ,” Gle bev . Frost , 135 S. C t. 429, 431 (2014) (em pha sis a dde d ), tria l c ourts have “ b roa d

disc re tion” in “ c o ntrolling the duration a

nd sc ope of c losing
sum m at ions.” He rring v . N

e w York , 422 U.S. 853, 862 (1975). Suc h disc re tion inc l ude s the powe r to e nsure tha t c l osing a

rgum e nts do “not stra

y unduly from the
m ark.” Id
. Whe n the Gove rnm e nt se iz e d the ha ndgun, it c hose to te s t the ha ndgun for DNA rathe r tha

n finge rprints. Ac c ording to the Gove rnm e nt, DNA re sults would be re turne d fa ste r and would bem ore a c c urate and c onc lusive . Although the Gove rnm e nt obta ine d re le va nt a nd proba tive DNA re sults from

the ha ndgun, La

ke
2suc c e ssfully

m ove d the distric t c ourt to e xc lude the fore nsic DNA e vide nc e a s untim e l y disc lose d (the Gove rnm e nt indic ate d tha t budge t c onstra ints forc e d it to
wa it until a

tria l da te wa s se t be fore re que sting DNA te sting). It wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion for thedistric t c ourt to the n pre c lude Lake from arguing la c k of finge rprint e vide nc e at

c losing a rgum e nt. La

ke ’ s c onstitutiona

l right to pre se nt a de fe nse did not inc l ude the right to a ffirm ative ly m isre pre se nt or fa lse ly

im ply tha t the p olic e ha d found no fore nsic e vide nc e c onne c ting him to the gun. 2. W e re vie w the la

wfulne ss of a

se a rc h a nd se iz ure and a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion to suppre s s de novo. Se e Unite d State s v . May e r , 560 F.3d 948, 956 (9th C ir. 2009); Unite d State s v . De e me r , 354 F.3d 1130, 1132 (9th C ir. 2004). Findings of fa c t unde rly ing the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination a re re vie we d for c le ar
e rror. Se e De e me r , 354 F.3d a t 1132. A distric t c o urt’ s re fusa l to hold a n
e vide ntia ry he a ring on a m otion to suppre ss is re vie we d for a n a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . QuocVie t Hoang , 486 F.3d 1156, 1163 (9th C i r. 2007). It wa s not
c le arly e rrone ous for the distric t c ourt to find tha t Offic e r Te de sc o wa s la

wfully pre s e nt ne ar Lake ’ s ve hic l e , a nd tha t with his fla shlight, Te d e sc o wa s a ble to se e the h andgun in plain vie w. The re fore , it wa s not a se arc h. Unite d

State s v . Dunn , 480 U.S. 294, 305 (1987) (“ [I] t is be y ond dispute tha t the a c t ion of a

polic e offic e r in shining his fla shlight to illum inate the inte rior of a

c ar, without proba

ble c a use
3to se arc h the c a r, tre nc he d upon no right se c ure d by the Fourth Am e n dm e nt.” ) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks a nd a lte ra tion omitte d ). B e c a use the inc rim inating na

ture of the gun wa s im

m e d i ate , the se iz ure of the se m i-a utom at ic ha

ndgun wa s la

wful unde r the pla in vie w e xc e ption to the wa rrant re quire m e nt. Se e Te x a s v . Brow n, 460 U.S. 730, 739 (1983) (plura lity opinion); Unite d State s v . Hall , 974 F.2d 1201, 1204 (9th C ir. 1992). Additiona lly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in fa iling to hold a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring prior to m aking its de c ision, be c a u se the re
we re no c onte ste d issue s of fa c t. Se e Unite d State s v . How e ll , 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th C ir. 2000) (holding tha t a n e vide ntia

ry he aring is re quire d

“ only whe n [the de fe nda n t] a lle ge [s] fa c t s with suffic ie nt de finite ne ss, c la rity , a nd spe c ific i ty

to
e na ble the tria l c ourt to c onc lude tha t c onte ste d issue s of fa c t e xist” ). Ly ne tte M ay na rd’ s de c la ra tion did not cre ate a

c onte ste d issue of fa c t. It sta te d only tha t she ha d se e n the window tint a

nd “be lie v e [d] ” the floorboa rd c o uld not bevie we d through it with a

fla shlight, while

Offic e r Te de sc o sta

te d tha t he a c tua lly

use d his fla shlight to look through the windows, a nd tha t he ha d use d

the sa m e fla shlight to look through e x c e ssive ly

tinte d windows m any tim e s a

n d ha d ne v e r be e n una

ble to
se e t hrough the m . 3. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion to honor a re q ue st to re pla

y or re re a d witne s s te stim o ny

“ for the jury ’ s be ne fit a fte r de l ibe ra t ion ha s be g un” for an a buse
4of disc re tion. U n ite d State

s v . Sandov a l , 990 F.2d 481, 486 (9th C ir. 1993) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Birge s, 723 F.2d 666, 671 (9th C ir. 1984)). Prior to the
re a d ba c k, the distric t c o urt prope rly a dm o nishe d the jurors tha t the y should not give the re a dba c k undue we ight or influenc e . S e e Unite d State s v . N e w hoff , 627 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th C ir. 2010). Thec o urt instruc te d the jury to give full
c onside ra tion to all

of the e v i de nc e and te stim ony pre se n te d, a

nd the le ngth of the te stim ony m a de it im

pra c tic a l to re a d the te stim ony in its e ntire ly
. Se e id
. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not c om m it a c l e ar e rror in judgm e nt whe n de c iding to allow a

pa rtia l re a dba c k of Offic e r Te de sc o’ s te stim ony . Se e Unite d State s v . He rnande

z , 27 F.3d 1403, 1408 (9th C ir.1994) (“ Unde r the a buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd, we will not re ve rse unle ss we hav e a de finite and firm
c onvic tion tha

t the distric t c o urt c om

m i tte d a c le ar e rror in judgm e n t .” ). 4. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of La ke ’ s m otion to dism

iss, on the ground tha

t the Gove rnm e nt viola

te d his Sixth Ame ndm e nt right to a spe e dy tria l
. Unite d State

s v . Gre gory , 322 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th C i r. 2003). Howe ve r, the d istric t c o urt’ s fa c tua l de te rm inations unde rly ing the c la im are re vie we d for
c le ar e rror. Id . The distric t c ourt fully e va luate d both thepre -indic tm e nt and postindic tm e nt de la

y s. R e le v ant to this c la im , the distric t c ourt found thefollowing fa c t s: (1) the Gove rnm e n t wa ite d to indic t La ke on the fe de ra l gun c ha rge s , 5be c a

use it did not wa

n t to pote ntia lly

c om prom ise its la

rge r B urnout Fa

m ily M a fia inve stiga tion; (2) it is not unc om

m on for a n inve stiga

t ion in onem atte r to de la

y or
a ffe c t a n indic tm e n t in a

nothe r; (3) the Gove rnm e nt se arc he d for M r. Lake , but he
wa s not found; (4) the

Gove rnm e nt did not ha

ve anything to do with the
ava ila bility of the ve h ic le a s e vide n c e at tria l, be c a use the Gove rnm e nt did not have c o ntrol ove r the ve hic l e and did not c a use the sa le of the ve hic le ; and (5) a l l de la y s post-indic tm e nt we re c a u se d by the de fe nda

n t or on be ha lf of the de fe nda nt. The distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings a re supporte d by

the re c ord a

nd not c l e arly
e rrone ous. Am ong othe r re a sons for de la y , the re c ord indic ate s tha t La ke m ove d to W a shington sta

te a fte r his indic tm e nt a

n d be fore his a

rre st without notify

ing his probat ion offic e r. Afte r e v a luating the“ [l] e ngth of de la y , the re a son for the de la

y , [Lake ’ s] a sse rtion of his right, a nd pre judic e to [La

ke ] ,” and de fe rring to the distric t c o urt’ s fa c tua l findings, we find La ke ’ s Sixth Am e n dm e nt spe e dy tria l right
wa s not viola

te d. Se e B ark

e r v . W ingo , 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 (1972). AFFIRM E D
.

6