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 lla nt,
v. VIR GIL LAR ONE HILEY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-50381 D.C . No. 5:09-c r-00121-C B M -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C onsue lo B . M arsha ll, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER , R AW LINSON, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. The Unite d State s a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of Virgil La

rone Hile y ’ s
m otions for a

judgm e nt of a c q

uitta l a nd for a c onditional ne w tria l . W e re ve rse the judgm e nt of a c quitta l, va c at e the grant of a ne w tria l , a

nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 

# FIL ED
JAN 06 2014 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 . 36-3.1. The distric t c ourt e rre d in c o nc l uding tha

t the e vide nc e wa s insuffic ie nt to support Hile y ’ s c onvic tions under 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g)(1) a nd 924(c )(1), a

nd 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). Give n tha t Hile y ha d a

ke y to the m ote l room

and tha t his be longings were the only pe rsona l e ffe c ts found inside , the re wa s suffic ie nt e vide nc e to support the jury ’ s c onc l usion tha

t he kne w of, a

nd the re fore c onstruc tive ly

posse sse d, the na

rc o tic s, a m m unition, a n d fire arm

found in
room 224. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Tuc k e r , 641 F.3d 1110, 1119 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding tha

t the de fe nda

nt ha d dom inion a

nd c ontrol ove r a

shotgun found in a

n
a pa rtm e nt tha

t c onta ine d his pe rsona l e ffe c ts, whe re he wa s the sole a dult oc c upa nt on the da y of the se arc h). M ore ove r, the ba gs of c oc a ine , m e tha m phe tam ine , a

nd m a rijua na , c ouple d with thedigita l sc a le an d m one y se iz e d by the polic e , we re suffic ie nt e v ide nc e of
an inte nt to distribute

na rc otic s unde r 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1). Se e Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 357 F.3d 980, 984 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha t sm a l l, se lf-se a ling ba gs of m e tha m p he tam ine , a

sc a le c om

m only use d to we igh drugs, a

nd a pa y -an d-owe she e t c onstitute d

suffic ie nt e vide nc e of inte nt to distribute drugs). Fina lly , the fire arm ’ s proxim ity to a substa n tia l qua ntity of na rc otic s and drug tra ffic king pa

ra p he rna lia supporte d the jury ’ s c onc lusion tha t Hile y posse s se d the fire arm

in furthe ranc e of a

drug tra ffic k ing c rim e in viola t ion of 18 Pa ge 2 of 4U.S.C . § 924(c )(1). Se e Unite d State s v . N o rw ood, 603 F.3d 1063, 1072 (9th C ir. 2010), as ame nde d (holding e vide n c e suffic ie n t to support de fe n d ant’ s c onvic tion whe re a fire arm wa s found unde r a m attre ss within a

fe w fe e t of 2 pa c ka ge s of
c oc a ine ). Ac c o rdingly , we re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt of a c quitta l.

2. The distric t c ourt a lso e rre d in a l te rnat ive l y gran t ing Hile y ’ s m otion for a n e w tria l. Unde r R

u l e 29, a distric t c ourt tha

t grants a m otion for a

judgm e nt of a c quitta l m

ust a lso de c ide whe t

he r a ne w tria l is wa

rrante d if the judgm e nt is
re ve rse d. Se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 29(d)(1). “ The c o urt m ust spe c ify

the re a s ons for that de te rm ination.” Id. H e re , the c ourt c onc lude d tha t a ne wtria l wa s wa

rrante d in the “ i nte re st of justic e ,” but re je c te d one of the grounds Hiley ha d a sse rte d in support of his m

otion— that the e vide nc e of his pa role sta tus pre judic e d the jury
. Othe r tha n its broa d

re fe re nc e to the “ inte re s t of justic e ,” the distric t c ourt fa ile d to spe c ify its re a soning for gra

nting a ne w tria l. Se e Unite d

State s v . N av arro Viayra , 365 F.3d 790, 795 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ [T] he rule s pe rm it a judge to orde r a

ne w tria l only in re sponse to a de fe nda n t’ s m otion.” ) (e m

p ha sis a dde d); se e also Trax le r v . Multnomah C

ounty , 596 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C i r. 2010) (“ [M ] e aningful a ppe lla te
re vie w . . . is fore c lose d whe n the distric t c ourt fa ils to a rtic ulate its re a soning.” ) (c ita tion omitte d). Pa ge 3 of 4To the e xte nt tha t the distric t c ourt gra

nte d a ne w tria l be c a

use it be lie ve d that the ve rdic t wa s a ga inst the we i ght of e vide n c e , it fa ile d to se t forth a ny
re a s oning to support tha

t c onc lusion. W

hile the distric t c ourt c ould ha ve we ighe d the e vide n c e without de fe re nc e to the jury ’ s ve rdic t unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C rim i na l Proc e d ure 33, se e Unite d State

s v . K e llington , 217 F.3d 1084, 1097 (9th C ir. 2000),
we c annot im

port the c ourt’ s a

n a ly sis unde r R

ule 29 to uphold its gra

nt of a ne w tria l . In the a

bse nc e of othe r re a soning, weare le ft without a ba sis for the distric t
c ourt’ s ruling. Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting a ne w tria l
and re m and for re c o nside ra t ion in light of our re v e rsa l of the c ourt’ s judgm e nt of
a c quitta l.

RE V E RSE D in par t ; V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D in par t.

Pa ge 4 of 4Pa ge 1 of 1

Unite d State s v . Hile y , No. 12-50381 W ATFORD , C irc uit Judge , c onc urring: I don’ t think the

distric t c ourt ne e ds to re c onside r its de c ision to gra nt a ne w tria l ; it just ne e ds to e xpla in in m ore de ta il its re a sons for re a c hing tha t de c ision. The c ourt pre sum a

bly de c i de d to gra

nt a ne w tria l “ [i] n the inte re st of justic e ” unde r R ule 33 be c a

u se it be lie ve d the e vide nc e pre ponde ra te d he avily a ga inst the
ve rdic t. Se e Unite d State s v . K e llington , 217 F.3d 1084, 1097 (9th C ir. 2000). The
c ourt’ s orde r did not m ake tha t e xplic it, howe ve r, so va c ating a nd re m anding the portion of theorde r granting a ne w tria l m a

ke s se nse . While the c ourt’ s a na ly sis of the s uffic ie nc y of the e vide nc e doe s not wa rran t gra nting a judgm e nt of a c quitta l, that ana ly sis fully

supports the

c ourt’ s de c ision to gra

nt a ne wtria l. W

he n a distric t c o urt c onc lude s tha t the e vide n c e pre ponde ra te s he a vily a g a inst theve rdic t,
a fte r inde pe nde ntly

we ighing thee vide nc e and e va luating for itse lf the c re dibility of the witne sse s (a s it’ s e ntitle d to do under R ule 33), we owe tha

t de te rm ination the h ighe st le ve l of de fe re n c e . Se e id. 

# FIL ED
JAN 06 2014 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS