This disposit io n i s n o t ap p ro p ri at e fo r p ub l i cation and is not prec edent except as * provided by

Ninth Cir. R. 36-3. The Honorab l e R an er C
. C o l l i n s , Un i t ed S t ates District Judge f or the District of ** Arizona, sitting by

designation. 1

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. Q U I N TO N W I LLI A M S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10506 D
. C
. N o . 2 : 0 3 -C R -4 6 -K JD -R JJ
ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da K e ntJ
. D a w s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i t t e d A pr i l 11, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia B ef ore: N O O N A N and N
. R
. S M IT H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O L L IN S , D i stri ct Judg e. ** 

# FI LED APR21 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

D e f e nda nt - A ppe l l a ntQ ui nt on W i l l i a m s appe a l s f r om hi s s e nt e nc e f

ol l ow i ng a j u ry tri al a n d g u ilty v erd i ct . T h e p art i es are p resu m ed t o b e fam i l i ar w i th th e fact s,
a n d w e d o n o t r e c o u n t th e m h e r e e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a r y to e x p la in o u rd e c is io n . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U
. S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f i r m. I
. Appe l lant ’s s e nt e nc e af t e rr e - tr i al W e r e v ie w c la im s o f

ju d ic ia l v in d ic tiv e n e s s d e n o v o . U ni t e d Stat e s v . P e

y t on , 3 5 3 F
. 3 d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 5 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ), o v erru l ed o n d i fferen t g ro u n d s b y U ni t ed St at es
v . C ontr e r as , 5 9 3 F .3 d 1 1 3 5 , 1 1 3 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 )
. W here t he de f

e nd a ntc a nn ots ho w a r e a s on a bl e l i ke l i ho od tha thi s ha r s her
se nt ence ata r etri al w as the re sul tof vi nd i ct i veness , the P earc e pr e s um pt i on doe s not
a p p ly a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g a c tu a l v in d ic tiv e n e s s . W as m an
v. U ni t ed St at es , 46 8 U
. S
. 55 9, 56 9 (19 84 ). T he c our ti n thi s c a s e s t a t e d a f f i r m a t i ve l y on t h e reco rd i t s r e a s ons f orgi vi ng W i l l i a m s a hi ghe rs e nt e nc e a f t e r r e tr i a l , not i ng tha t gui de l i ne r e c om m e nda t i on i n the 20 03 P re se nt ence R eportdi d n oti ncl ud e the car ee r off ender appl i ca t i on . W hen an i ncre as e i n sent ence re sul t s s ol el y f rom the court ' s corre ct i on of an error i n t he ori gi nal p r e s e n te n c e r e p o r t, th e r e is n o r e a s o n a b le lik e lih o o d o f v in d ic tiv e n e s s . U

ni t ed St at es
v . G ar c i a- G ui

z ar , 2 3 4 F .3 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 9
- 9 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )
. B ec ause the P earc e p r e s u m p tio n c a te g o r ic a lly d o e s n o t ap p ly to A p p e l l a n t'sAppellant argued for the first time that the prosecutor was vindictive for seekingthe ca reer 1 offender enhancemen t . T h i s ar gument is waived. Bu tler v . Cu rry , 528 F.3d 624, 642 ( 9th Cir. 2008). 3 r e s e n te n c in g , h e m u s t p r o v e a c tu a l v in d ic tiv e n e s s . I d. a t490 ( quot i ng W

as m an , 468 U
. S
. at56 9). A pp el l antconceded at oral ar gu m ent thathe coul d n otdem on stra t e that th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s a c tu a lly v in d ic tiv e . 1 T h e r e f o r e , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o t e n g a g e i n v i n d i c t i v e s e n t e n c i n g , a n d we af fi rm A pp el l ant ’ s 210 -m on th sent ence . II. Ap p el la n t ’s F a r e tta req u est U nd erei ther de no vo o r ab u se o f d i scret i o n rev i ew , A p p el l an t ’ s Fa r e tta c la im f a ils
. See U

ni t ed St at es v. Kaczy nski , 2 3 9 F .3 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )
. A co u rtm ay d en y a d efe n d a n t ' s Fa r e tta r e que s ti f i tc a nnotf

i nd “ tha the know i ngl y a nd i nt e l l i ge nt l y f or goe s hi s r i ghtt o c ouns e l a nd tha the i s a bl e a nd w i l l i ng t o abi de by rul es of p ro cedu re and cou rtroom prot ocol
. ” McKas kl e v . W i ggi ns , 465 U
. S
. 16 8, 17 3 (19 84 ). T he r e i s a m pl e s uppor t i n the r e c or d t o s us t a i n f i ndi ngs ( i ) tha tW i l l i a m s di d not k n o w i n g l y a n d i n t e l l i g e n t l y w a i v e h i s r i g h tt o r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , a n d / o r( i i ) th a tW i l l i a ms d e m o n s tr a te d d u r in g th e h e a r in g th a t h e w o u ld b e d e f ia n t a n d d is ru p tiv e if

a llo w e d to
re pres enthi m se l f. A s t o the f

i r s t , w he n a s ke d by the m a gi s tr a t e j udge w he the rhe unde r s t ood the4

char ges a nd consequences i n h i s c as e, W i l l i am s g av e con fl i ct i ng and n on se nsi ca l
an sw er s. In addi t i on , he se em ed t o b el i eve thatthe ca se w as a pri vat e bankrup t cy p r o c e e d in g . B a s e d o n th is r e c o r d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c tly f o u n d th a t W illia m s d id
n o t k n o w in g ly a n d in te llig e n tly w a iv e h is r ig h t to c o u n s e l. A s t o t he se cond , throu gh ou tthe Fa r e tta hear i ng , W i l l i am s i nt errupt ed the court
an d couns e l , a nd w a s rude a nd di s r e s pe c t f ul t o the c our t . H i s be ha vi or w a s so di srup t i ve thatthe courtthrea t ened t o b i nd and g ag hi m , and h e w as fi nal l y s ub du ed b y th e M a r s h a ls . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y f o u n d th a t W illia m s w a s n o t w illin g to
a bi de by c our tr oom pr ot oc ol a nd rul e s of pr oc e dur e ba s e d on hi s be ha vi ordur i ng the Fa r e tta h e a r in g . D e n y in g A p p e lla n t's F a r e tta r e q u e s t w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . I I I
. D e ni al

of m is tr i al W e revi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ' s de ni a l of a m ot i on f

orm i s tr i a l f

ora bus e of d is c r e tio n . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . Sarkis i an , 19 7 F
. 3d 96 6, 98 1 (9t h C i r. 19 99 ). W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ' s f

i nd i ng s of f

ac ti n c on nect i on w i th t he m ot i on for am i stri al for c l ea r
e r r o r . U ni t e d Stat e s v . B onas , 3 4 4 F .3 d 9 4 5 , 9 4 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )
. W e gi ve “ subst ant i al w ei gh t ” t o t he di stri ctcourt' s a ss es sm entof w hether a
m i s tr i a l i s ne c e s sary, an d p re s um e tha tthe tr i a l j udge “ w ho pr e s i de d a tthe tr i a l a nd ob se rved the j ury” i s i n t he bestpo si t i on t o d et erm i ne i f w hathapp ened w as5

p r e ju d ic ia l. Sarkis i an , 19 7 F
. 3d at 98 1-82
. T he S i xt h A m endm ent“ af fords no rel i ef
w hen t he defendant ' s ow n m i sc on du ctcaused the al l eged j uror part i al i ty and the tri al ju d g e e m p lo y e d r e a s o n a b le m e a n s u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s to p r e s e r v e th e tr ia l's fa i rnes s. ” W

i l l i a m s v. W

o o d f o rd , 38 4 F
. 3d 56 7, 62 6 (9t h C i r. 20 04 ). H e r e , A p p e lla n t's r e q u e s t f o r a m is tr ia l w a s o c c a s io n e d b y h is o w n m is c o n d u c t,
w h ic h w a s s o s e v e r e it r e q u ir e d h is r e m o v a l. T h e c o u r t a c te d a s q u ic k ly a s it c o u ld to pr e ve ntthe j ur y f

r om he a r i ng a ny m or e of the outbur s t a nd r e m ove W i l l i a m s f r om the
c our tr oom . I n a ddi t i on, the c our ti ns truc t e d the j ur or s t o ( i ) notbe i nf l ue n ced by pers on al l i kes o r d i sl i kes, op i ni on s, prej ud i ce s, or sy m pathy, (i i ) d ec i de the ca se base d onl y on pr ope r l y a dm i t t e d e vi de nc e , a nd ( i i i ) i gnor e a ny thi ng the y m a y ha ve s e e n or h eard w h en co u rtw as n o ti n sessi o n . A j u ry i s p resu m ed t o fo l l o w i t s i n stru ct i o n s. Me jia v . G a r c ia , 53 4 F
. 3d 10 36 , 10 43 fn. 3 (9t h C i r. 20 08 ). T h e r e w a s n o r e a s o n to p r e s u m e th a t th e ju r y w a s in f lu e n c e d b y A p p e lla n t's outbur s t , a nd the r e w a s no r e a s on t o r e w a r d W i l l i a m s w i th a m i s tr i a l
. T he r e f or e , the
c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d e n ie d th e m o tio n f o rm is tr ia l. AF F I RME D.