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. GREGOR

Y LYNN SHR

ADER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10563

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00355-NVW -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 13, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, C LIFTON, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Gre gory Ly nn Shra d e r a

ppe a ls from

his c onvic tions a

nd se nte n c e for wilfully m a

king a thre a t by m e a

ns of a n e xplosive , tra

nsporting e xplosivem ate ria l, m a iling a n injurious a

rtic l e , a nd unla wfully posse s sing e xplosivem ate ria l. W e a ffirm . 

# FIL ED MAY06 2016 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 distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Shra d e r’ s re que sts to dismiss his re ta ine d c ounse l. Shra de r’ s initia l m o t ions to dism iss c ounse l did not spe c ify what c ourse of a c tion he inte nde d to pursueif c ounse l wa s dism isse d. He c ould not bele ft unre p re se nte d. The distric t c o urt e xplic itly a dvise d him tha t if he wante d to re pre se nt him s e lf, he ha d to re que st pe rm i ssion, a s the c ourt would ha ve to c o nfirm

his c om pe te nc e to wa ive c ounse l. If he wa nte d to substitute

ne w re ta ine d c ounse l, he c ould submit a stipula tion with new c ounse l . If he wa nte d to have c o unse l a

ppointe d on the ba sis of indigenc y , he would ha ve to file a

m otion that de m onstra

t e d his la c k of re sourc e s . Shra de r le t m ore tha n a m onth pa ss be fore re sponding. He

did not move to a

ppoint ne w c ounse l until De c e m be r 5, 2014, te n da y s be fore se nte n c ing. At tha t point the

distric t c ourt a

ppropria te ly provide d him with a fina nc ia l a ffidavit form

to be use d for filing a

n a p p lic ation for a

ppointe d c ounse l, but tha

t form w a s not re turne d to the c ourt until the sa m e da y tha t ha d long be e n sc h e dule d for se nte nc ing. The distric t c ourt wa s not e ve n m a de aware of it until a fte r the he aring ha d sta rte d. In light of Shra de r’ s m ultiplee arlie r opportunitie s to re que st the a ppointm e nt of c ounse l, whic h he c hose not to e xe rc ise , the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to de la y se nte nc ing wa s justifia

bly

“ c o m pe lle d by ‘ purpose s inhe re nt in thefa ir, e ffic ie nt a nd orde rly

a dm inistra

tion of justic e .’ ” Unite d State

s v . Riv e ra-C

o rona , 618 F.3d 976, 979 (9th C ir. 2010). 2Shra de r’ s se nte nc e did not viola te double je opa

rdy . W e re vie w double je opa rdy c l a im s de novo. Unite d State s v . K imbre w , 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th C ir. 2005). In a

na l y z ing whe the r two offe nse s a re duplic ative we m

u st de te rm ine whe the r e a c h sta

tutory provision “

re quire s proof of a

fa c t whic h the othe r doe s not not.” B loc k

burge r v . Unite d State

s , 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). The offe nse s in c ounts 1 a nd 2 of the indic tm e nt a

re not duplic ative . A c onvic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 844(e ), unlike one unde r § 844(d), re quire s tha t the jury find the e xiste nc e of a wilful thre a t, while a c o nvic tion unde r § 844(d), unlike § 844(e ), re q

uire s the transporta tion of a n e xplosive . Sim ila

rly , c ount 3 is not a le s se r inc lude d offe nse of c ount 1 be c a

u se the c rim e c ha

rge d in c o unt 3, unlike

the wilful thre at c onvic tion, re quire s a “ de posit[] for m a iling or de live ry .” 18 U.S.C . § 1716(j)(1). The re wa s suffic ie nt e vide nc e to support c onvic tions for both c ounts 1 a nd 2. So long a s “ any

ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of the c rim e [s] be y ond a re a sona b le doubt” we m

ust a ffirm the c onvic tions. Unite d State s v . N e v ils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n ba nc ). R e ga rdle ss of whe the r the e xplosivede vic e m a ile d by Shra de r wa s func tiona l, the jury c ould ra tiona lly have found tha t he inte nde d tha

t She riff Arpa i o vie w the de v ic e a s a suffic ie n tly

se rious thre a t or a c t of intimidation to motiva te an inve stiga

t ion of W illia

m Ste wart.

3The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a

pply ing the offic ia l-vic tim se nte nc ing e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2. Thee nha nc e m e nt a

pplie s e ve n whe re the ha

rm to the offic ia l vic tim

is pure ly a m e ans to a

n e nd. Se e Unite d State

s v . Riv e ra-Alonzo , 584 F.3d 829, 836–37 (9th C i r. 2009). Irre spe c tive of whe the r Shra de r’ s ultim a te goa l wa s to ha rm She riff Arpa io, he inte nde d tha t Arpa io be intim idate d a s a

n e le m e nt of his pla

n to fra m e Ste w art a

n d c hose Arpa io a s a

vic tim in pa rt be c a use of his offic ia l sta

tus. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err in a dm itting into e vide nc e te s tim ony and doc um e nts re lating to Shra de r’ s busine ss re lat ionship with Ste wart a nd his othe r a tte m

pts to fra m e Ste wart for ille ga l a c tivitie s. The e v ide nc e wa s dire c tly re le va nt to e s ta blishing Shra de r’ s m otive for c o m m itting his crim e s a

nd his ide ntity a s the ir pe rpe trator. Fe d. R . Evid. 404(b)(2). AFFIRM E D .

4