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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R ANDY ALTON GR

AVES, AKA Swe e ts,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50276

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-01288-DM S-1
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 10, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAEZ a

nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KATZM ANN, ** Judge
. R andy Alton Gra

ve s c ha l le nge s his c onvic tions for drug c onspira c y and posse s sion a

nd re sulting life

se nte nc e a fte r his c a se wa s se ve re d from those of othe r de fe nda

nts c ha rge d with c onspiring to pa rtic i pate in a

ra c ke t e e r influe nc e d 

# FIL ED
M AY30 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 Honora

ble Ga ry S. Katz m a

nn, Judge for the Unite d State s C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion.and c orrupt orga niz ation a s a lle ge d ga

ng m e m be rs. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd 18 U.S.C
. § 3742. W e a ddre ss in a se pa rate , publishe d opinion his a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t

c o urt e rre d in c o nc luding tha t his c o nvic tion unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 4573.6 qualifie d a s a fe lony drug offe nse unde r 21 U.S.C
. § 841. W e a ffirm

on the re m a inde r of Grav e s’ c la i m s he re . 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Gra ve s’ m otion to suppre ss wire ta p
e vide nc e . 1 Grave s ne v e r re que ste d tha t the c o urt re c use itse lf from re vie wing the wire ta p wa rrant, a nd he points to no a

uthority e sta blishing tha

t the c ourt’ s fa ilure to do so c onstitute d pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993). The m a in c a se that supports Gra ve s’ position, Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

z , 851 F.3d 931, 937 (9th C ir. 2017), wa s publishe d two y e a rs a fte r the distric t
c ourt’ s de c ision a

nd so a ny e rror wa s not “

pla in.” Unite d State

s v . Gonzale

zAparic io , 663 F.3d 419, 428 (9th C ir. 2011). R e vie wing thea p plic ation de novo,
we c onc lude tha

t the wire ta

p a p plic ation m e t the re quire m e nts unde r 18 U.S.C
.

1 The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s Grave s ne ve r ha d sta nding to c ha lle nge the wire ta p orde r be c a

use his c onve rsations we re not inte rc e p te d pursua nt to tha t orde r and he did not own a

ny of the inte rc e pte d phone s. B y sta t ute , a ny “ a ggrie ve d pe rson” — de fine d a s a

pa rty to a ny inte rc e pte d c o m

m unic ation or a

ny “ pe rson a ga inst whom the i nte rc e p tion wa s dire c te d” — m ay m ove to suppre ss the c onte nts of a wire ta p. 18 U.S.C . §§ 2510(11), 2518(10)(a ). Grave s’ c onve rsations we re e xpe c te d to be inte rc e pte d, a

nd the gove rnm e nt supporte d its wire ta p re que st with e xam

ple s of his c rim ina l a c tivity
. W e the re fore c onside r his c l a im be c a use Grav e s ha s sta

nding a s an “ a ggrie ve d pe rson” unde r the sta tute . 2§ 2518(1)(c ). The distric t c o urt a lso did not a

b use its disc re t ion in c onc luding the wire ta p wa s ne c e ssa

ry be c a use the a pplic ation provide d a

full sta te m e nt why othe r inve stiga tive proc e dure s ha d fa ile d or a ppe are d unlike l y to suc c e e d if trie d. Se e id. ; Unite d State s v . Riv e ra , 527 F.3d 891, 898 (9th C ir. 2008). 2. Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing a m otion for re c usa l. Se e Unite d State

s v . J ohnson , 610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th C ir. 2010). Gra ve s ha s ide n tifie d the judge ’ s ge ne ra l fam ilia rity with him and his c a se ba se d on sepa rate proc e e dings, but ha s not pre se nte d e vide nc e of suc h “ a de e p-se ate d favoritism

or
anta gonism

tha t would m ake fa ir judgm e nt im possible .” Lite k

y v . Unite d State

s , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Gra ve s’ re que st for
a buy e r-se lle r jury

instruc tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Moe , 781 F.3d 1120, 1125-26 (9th C ir. 2015). W

hile a c rim i na l de fe n da

nt ha s a c o nstitutiona

l right to ha

ve the jury instruc te d a c c ording to his the ory of the c a se , provide d tha

t the instruc tion is supporte d by la

w a n d ha s som e founda

tion in the

e vide nc e , the distric t c ourt m ay de ny a re que ste d instruc tion whe re the e vide nc e is insuffic ie nt to sustain tha t the o ry of de fe nse . Unite d State

s v . Oc a mpo-Estrada , 873 F.3d 661, 665 (9th C ir. 2017). Gra

v e s ha s not e sta

blishe d a n a buse of disc re tion be c a

use the e vide nc e

3supporte d a

c onspira c y

the ory a nd wa s insuffic ie nt to sustai n a buy e r-se lle r de fe nse . 4. Fina lly , the se nte nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt provision in 21 U.S.C
. § 841 is not void for va gue ne ss a s a

pplie d to Gra

ve s be c a use his prior c onvic tions a re c le arly fe lony drug offe nse s. B lue B r. 56. Gra ve s a c knowle dge s this, but he argue s tha

t the provision is fac ia lly

void for va gue ne ss. Pre viously , in U nite d State

s v . Van W inrow , 951 F.2d 1069, 1072 (9th C ir. 1991) a nd Unite d State

s v . Minc off

, 574 F.3d 1186, 1201 (9th C ir. 2009), we c o nside re d the c onstitutiona l ity of the “ fe lony drug offe nse ” de finition “ a s a pplie d” to the de fe nda

nt, not fa c ia l ly . The Supre m e C ourt’ s de c isions, J

o hnson v . Unite d State

s , 135 S. C t. 2551 (2015) a nd Se ssions v
. Dimay a , 138 S. C t . 1204 (2018), a re not “ c le a

rly irre c onc ila

b l e ” with our pre c e de nts, so we m

ust follow V

an W inrow and Minc off

. Mille r v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba nc ). AFFIRM E D in par t
.

4