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 ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DANIEL W OOLEM , AKA Da nie l W ayne W oole m De fe nda

nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-30032

D.C . No. 16-C R -2079-SAB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Stanle y A. B a stia n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 12, 2019** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : FLETC HER , C ALLAHAN, a nd C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Da nie l W oole m

a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for c onspira c y to distribute

and distribution of m

e tha m phe tam ine in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846, a nd 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a )(1) and (b)(1)(B ). W oole m



# FIL ED APR 22 2019 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).pre s e nts interc o nne c te d c la im s of prose c utoria l m isc onduc t and ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we a ffirm
. 1 Whe n c ounse l fa ils to obje c t at tria l to a c ts of a lle ge d prose c utoria l
m isc o nduc t, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Hinton , 31 F.3d 817, 824 (9th C ir. 1994). 1. The prose c utor did not enga ge in im prope r vouc hing. “ The prose c ution
m ay not vouc h for the c re dibility of its witne sse s by

‘ pla c ing thepre stige of the gove rnm e nt be h ind a witne ss through persona l a ssura n c e s of the witne s s’ s ve ra c ity ’ or ‘ sugge sting tha t inform ation not pre s e nte d to thejury supports the witne s s’ s te stim ony .’ ” Unite d State s v . Dorse y , 677 F.3d 944, 953 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting Unite d State

s v . N e c oe c he a , 986 F.2d 1273, 1276 (9th C i r. 1993)). W e have c onsiste ntly

he ld tha t whe n the de fe nse first a

tta c ks a witne s s’ s c re d ibility , the prose c utor m ay a sk the witne ss a

bout thetruthfulne ss re quire m e nts of the ir ple a a gre e m e nt. Se e e .g., id. at 953

– 54; U

nite d State

s v . Monroe , 943 F.2d 1007, 1013 (9th C ir. 1991) (holding tha t “ a re fe re nc e to the‘ truthful te stim ony ’ provisions of a

witne ss’ s a gre e m e nt with the gove rnm e nt doe s not c onstitute

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s a

nd a rgum e nts on a ppe a l, we do not re c ite the m he re . 2vouc hing if it is m a de in re sponse to a

n atta c k on the witne ss’ s c re dibility be c a use of his ple a

ba rga in” ). He re , not only

did W oole m ’ s c ounse l atta c k the c re dibility

of the gove rnm e nt’ s witne sse s during his ope ning sta te m e nt his c ounse l’ s c ross e xam ination purpose ly

e lic ite d tha t the witne ss wa s re c e iving a re duc e d se nte nc e in e xc ha nge for his te s tim ony

and W oole m ’ s c ounse l m o ve d to a dm it thee ntire ple a a gre e m e nt into e vide nc e . Only a fte r the se atta c ks on the witne s s’ s c re dibility did the p rose c utor e l ic it furthe r te stim ony a bout thewitne ss’ s unde rsta nding of theple a a gre e m e nt on re -dire c t. “ Whe n the de fe nse ope ns a door, it should not be

surprise d to se e the prose c utor e nte r.” Dorse y , 677 F.3d a

t 954. W e c onc lude tha

t the re wa s no im prope r vouc hing. 2. The prose c utor did not a sk W oole m to c om m e nt on theve ra c ity

of othe r witne s se s at tria l. “ A prose c utor m ust not a sk de fe nda

nts during c ross-e xam ination to c o m m e nt on thetruthfulne ss of othe r witne sse s.” Unite d State s v . Alc a ntara-C

astillo , 788 F.3d 1186, 1191 (9th C ir. 2015). “ This ruleis ‘ bla c k le tte r la w,’ and it e n sure s tha

t de te rm inations of c re dibility re m a in within the

sole provinc e of the jury .” Id . (c ita t ion omitte d) (quoting Unite d State s v . Harrison , 585 F.3d 1155, 1158 (9th C ir. 2009)).

3The prose c utor’ s que stions here we re not e quiva le nt to a sking W oole m to c om m e nt on thetruth or fa lsity of a nothe r witne ss. Our c a se s finding prose c utoria l
m isc o nduc t involve que stions tha t a ske d a de fe nda nt to c om m e nt dire c tly

on the te stim ony of a nothe r witne ss. C

f
. id. at 1192 (holding tha

t “ [y ] our te stim o ny

is tha t [the y are ] inve nting storie s a

bout y ou; is tha

t c orre c t ? ” wa s im

prope r); Unite d State s v . C ombs , 379 F.3d 564, 567 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha t “ [s] o Spe c ia l Age nt B a ile y

is m aking tha

t up? ” wa s im

prope r). 3. W e de c line to c onside r W oole m ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im s on dire c t a

ppe a l. “ As a

‘ ge ne ra l rule ,’ we ‘ do not re vie w c ha lle nge s to the e ffe c tive ne ss of de fe n s e c ounse l on dire c t a ppe a l .’ ” Unite d State

s v . Mc Gow an , 668 F.3d 601, 605 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting Unite d State s v . More l

and, 622 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th C ir. 2010)). “ C ha l le nge by wa y of a ha be a s proc e e ding is pre fe ra ble be c a use it pe rm its thede fe nda nt to de ve lop a re c ord a s to wha t c ounse l did, why it wa s done , a

nd wha t, if a ny , pre judic e re sulte d .” Id . (inte rna l quota tions om i tte d). Ne ithe r of our re c ogniz e d e xc e ptions for re vie w a pplie s. Ac c ordingly , we de c line to a ddre ss W oole m ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of c ounse l c la im s without pre j udic e to his raising them in a prope rly file d m otion under 28 U.S.C . § 2255. AFFIRM E D.

4