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. DONNIE R

AY JOSE, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10504

D.C . No. 4:15-c r-01387-JAS-B GM -1
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s Ala

n Soto, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 4, 2019 Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : C LIFTON, IKUTA, a nd FRIEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s. Donnie R ay

Jose a ppe a ls his c onvic tions for a s sa ult with a da nge rous we a pon, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 113(a)(3) and 1153, a nd a ssa u lt re sulting in
se rious bodily injury , in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C
. §§ 113(a )(6) and 1153. W e a ffirm ,



# FIL ED JUL 03 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.but re m an d to thedistric t c ourt to re v ise one of the writte n supe rvise d re le a s e

c onditions to m

atc h the ora l pronounc e m e nt a t se nte n c ing. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by c ontinuing tria l for fourte e n da

y s a fte r the prose c utor disc ove re d a re c ording of Tohono O’ o d ham polic e offic e rs inte rvie wing thevic tim . In de te rm ining whe the r a c o ntinua n c e is
a ppropria te , tria l c ourts should c onside r (1) the re que s ting pa rty ’ s dilige n c e , (2) the utility of the c ontinua

nc e , (3) inc onve nie nc e to the c ourt a nd the othe r side , and (4) pre j udic e . Se e Unite d State

s v . Pope , 841 F.2d 954, 956 (9th C i r. 1988). The
m a jority of those fa c t ors supporte d the tria l c ourt’ s de c ision he re . The gove rnm e nt
m a de a good fa ith a

tte m pt to m e e t its disc ove ry

obliga tions. The c ontinua

nc e ope ne d the door for the pote ntia l c onside ration of re le va nt e vide nc e . Jose suffe re d no pre judic e be c a

use the two-we e k c ontinua nc e a llowe d him

to dige st the
re c o rding a

nd m a k e any ne c e s sa ry c ha nge s to his de fe nse strat e gy . Se e Unite d State s v . Suk umolac han , 610 F.2d 685, 688 (9th C ir. 1980) (pe r c uriam ). Jose c onte nds tha

t he suffe re d a diffe re nt form of pre j udic e : If the re c ording ha d be e n e xc l ude d , Jose c ould ha ve argue d tha

t the vic tim

ha d re c e ntly

fa b ric ate d he r e xpla nation of how she

wa s a b le to ide ntify Jose a s he r atta c ke r. That de fe nse wa s thwa rte d by the re c ording a

nd the c ourt’ s ruling tha

t , e ve n though the
re c o rding c ould not beintroduc e d in theprose c ution’ s c a s e -in-c hie f, it c ould be
2use d

to re but a fa

bric ation c la im
. “ [T] hat is not the se nse in whic h [a

de fe n da nt]
m ust de m onstra

t e pre judic e . ” U

nite d State

s v . Espe ric ue ta-Re

y e s , 631 F.2d 616, 623 n.6 (9th C ir. 1980) (re je c ting a sim ila r argum e nt); Unite d State s v . Eddy , 549 F.2d 108, 113 (9th C ir. 1976) (sa m e ). Jose wa s not e ntitle d to ha ve the re c ording
e xc lude d be c a

u s e it “ d am a ge d [his] c a se . ” Eddy , 549 F.3d a t 113. C o nse q

ue ntly , the m a jority of the pe rtine nt fa c tors fa vore d c ontinuing tria

l for two we e ks. The distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

doing so. 1 2. W e a lso re

je c t Jose ’ s a sse rtion tha

t he is e ntitle d to a

ne w tria l be c a

use two witne sse s viola

te d a n in limine

ruling by re fe re nc i ng his prior a c ts of dom e stic viole nc e . B e c a

use Jose d i d not obje c t, this c ourt re vie ws for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Hanle y , 190 F.3d 1017, 1029 (9th C i r. 1999), supe rse d e d on othe r grounds by U.S.S.G. 2S1.1. None of the c ha lle nge d sta te m e nts dire c tly

re fe re nc e d Jose ’ s prior a

buse . As a

re sult, it wa s not “ c le ar-c ut” or “ obvious”tha t the te stim ony viola te d the in limine ruling. Unite d State s v . W ahid, 614 F.3d 1009, 1015 (9th C ir. 2010). Thedistric t c ourt did not pla

inly e rr by a dm itting it. Se e id.

1 For the sa

m e re a sons, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by pe rm itting the

gove rnm e nt to usethe re c ording in rebutta l, or by re je c t ing Jose ’ s propose d solution, which wa s pre c lude a ll re fe re nc e s to thesc e nt of his c o logne
. Se e Suk umolac han , 610 F.2d a

t 688. 33. Jose ’ s a s se rtion tha t he is e ntitle d to a

ne w tria l be c a

use of thre e purporte d insta

nc e s of prose c utoria l m isc onduc t a l so la c ks m e rit. The prose c utor did not a c t im

prope rly by a sking se ve ra l witne sse s how thesta b bing a ffe c te d the m or by re sponding to de fe nse c ounse l in he r c losing a rgum e nt. Eve n if the prose c utor a c te d im

prope rly by disc ussing during c losing the im pa c t of the sta bbing on se ve ra l y oung c hildre n, Jose suffe re d no pre judic e . Substa

ntia l
e vide nc e e s ta

blishe d Jose ’ s guilt. Jose and the vic tim

argue d shortly

be fore the sta bbing, se ve ra l witne sse s te stifie d tha t Jose wa s the a ssa ila

nt, a nd Jose did not ide n tify anothe r c re dible suspe c t. M ore o ve r, the prose c utor’ s argum e nt would not have ha d a

signific ant im

pa c t on thejury . The e vide n c e showe d tha t se ve ra l y oung c hildre n witne sse d the sta bbing, a nd the jury

would ha ve unde rstood tha

t to be a tra um at ic e xpe rie nc e e v e n if the prose c utor ha d sa id nothing. Unde r those
c irc um s ta nc e s , the prose c utor’ s c losing a rgum e nt did not a ffe c t Jose ’ s substa ntia l rights. Thedistric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr by pe rm itting it. In a ddition, for sa

m e re a s ons disc usse d a

bove , the re wa s no c um

ulative e rror. 4. As the Supre m e C o urt re c e ntly re a ffirm e d, prose c utions under the la ws of
se pa rate sove re igns do not viola te the Double Je opa

rdy C la use . Gamble

v . Unite d State s , 139 S. C t. 1960, 1964 (2019). Jose wa s initially

prose c ute d by

the Tohono O’ odha m Nation, a gove rnm e nt with “ inhe re nt a nd indepe nde nt sove re ignty .” Se e
4Unite d

State s v . Male J uv e nile , 280 F.3d 1008, 1020 (9th C i r. 2002).

“ Ac c ordingly , the subse que nt fe de ra l prose c ution did not viola t e the Double Je opa rdy C la use .” Id. 5. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr by im posing a c o ndition of supe rvise d re le a se tha

t prohibits Jose

from c onta c ting thevic tim ’ s fam ily
m e m b e rs, som e of whom

we re a lso re late d to Jose . The rationa le unde rly ing tha t
c ondition is a

ppa re nt from the re c ord: the c ourt re a sona bly c onc l ude d tha

t it wa s ne c e ssa ry to prote c t both thevic tim and he r fam ily . M ore spe c ific findings we re not ne c e ssa

ry , be c a u s e the c ondition doe s not pre v e nt Jose from c onta c ting his own intim ate fam ily

m e m b e rs, suc h a s his c hildre n or a life pa rtne r. Se e Unite d State

s
v . W olf C hild, 699 F.3d 1082, 1090, 1093-94 (9th Ci r. 2012); Unite d State s v . N apulou , 593 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th C ir. 2010). 6. Fina lly , we re

je c t Jose ’ s c ha lle nge to the c ondition of supe rvise d re le a se that re q uire s Jose to givehis proba tion offic e r a c c e ss to his fina nc ia l re c ords. A fina nc ia l disc losure c ondition is a ppropria te whe n a de fe nda nt m ust pa y re s titution. Unite d State s v . Garc ia , 522 F.3d 855, 861 (9th C ir. 2008). As the gove rnm e nt pointe d out, thedistric t c ourt orde re d Jose to pa y re stitution to India

n He a lth Se rvic e s. Jose did not re spond to tha t a rgum e nt.

5Ne ve rthe le s s, both pa rtie s a gre e tha

t the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt did not
re fle c t the se nte nc e it ora lly

pronounc e d. At these nte nc ing he aring, the distric t
c ourt re quire d Jose to “provide a ll fina nc ia l doc um e ntation” tha

t his a ssigne d probat ion offic e r “ re a sona bly re que ste d.” That lim ita

t ion wa s not inc lude d in the writte n judgm e nt. The writte n judgm e nt a lso a d de d a c la use tha t pe rm itte d

the probat ion offic e to sha

re Jose ’ s fina

n c ia l inform ation with the U.S. Attorne y ’ s Offic e . B e c a

use the c ourt’ s ora l pronounc e m e nt is c o ntrolling, we “ re m and so tha t the d istric t c o urt c an

m a ke the writte n judgm e nt c onsiste nt with the ora l pronounc e m e nt.” Unite d State s v . He rnande

z , 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Hic k, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th C ir. 1993)). AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D in par t.

6