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. DUR AID HUSSEIN, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-10181

D.C . No. 2:17-c r-01351-GM S-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G. M urray

Snow, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 12, 2022 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON, B ADE, a

nd B RESS, C irc uit Judge s . Dura id Husse in (Husse in) a ppe a l s his c onvic tion for be ing a fe lon in posse s sion of a

fire arm in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g)(1) a nd 924(a )(2). He
a lso a ppe a l s the de nia l of his m otions to dism i ss the indic tm e nt, for a m istria l, a nd 

# FIL ED AUG 30 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).for a n e w tria l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w de novo thede nia l of a de fe nda nt’ s m otion to dism

iss a n indic tm e nt. Unite d State

s v . Lask ie , 258 F.3d 1047, 1049 (9th C ir. 2001). W e
re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion the de nia l of a m otion for a

m istria l or for a

ne w tria l
. Se e Unite d State

s v . Bank s , 514 F.3d 959, 973 (9th C ir. 2008) (m i stria l); Unite d State s v . C hhun , 744 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th C ir. 2014) (ne wtria l ). 1. Husse in c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to dism iss the indic tm e nt a s le ga lly

insuffic ie n t. He spe c ific a l ly m a i nta ins tha

t he did not ha

ve a prior c onvic tion punisha

ble by im prisonm e nt for a

te rm e xc e e ding one y e ar unde r Ariz ona la

w be c a u se the sta

t e c ourt suspe nde d his se nte nc e , a nd did not im

pose a
se nte nc e e xc e e ding one y e ar. Howe v e r, Husse in stipula te d to ha ving be e n
c onvic te d of tha

t fe l ony . To the e xte nt tha t Husse in’ s stipula

tion did not invite
e rror, se e Unite d State

s v . He r nande z , 27 F.3d 1403, 1407 (9th C ir. 1994), as
ame nde d , his a

rgum e nt fa ils on them e rits. At the tim e of his indic tm e nt, Husse in ha d a prior fe lony c onvic tion for
a ggrav at e d a ssa

ult. Theoffe nse c arrie d a m a xim um se nte n c e of 1.5 y e ars unde r Ariz ona la

w, a n d Husse in wa s se nte nc e d to thre e y e a rs’ probation. S

e e Ariz . R e v. Stat . § 13-702(D) (c la ss 6 fe lonie s). “ [W ] h e n c onside ring whe the r a c rim e is

‘ p unisha ble ’ by m ore tha n one y e ar, [we ] . . . e xam ine both thee le m e nts a nd the
2se nte nc ing fa c t ors” to de c ide whe the r the c onvic tion “ a c tua lly e xpose d” the de fe nda n t to m ore tha

n one y e a r of im p risonm e nt. Unite d State s v . Mc Adory , 935 F.3d 838, 843-44 (9th C ir. 2019) (c ita t ion om itte d). B e c a

use Husse in’ s c rim e of
c onvic tion a c tua lly

e xpose d him

to a te rm of im prisonm e nt tha

t e xc e e de d one y e ar, the d istric t c o urt c orre c tly de nie d his m o tion to dism iss the indic t

m e nt on this ba sis. Se e Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 13-701(C ), (D)(11); State v . Bonfiglio , 295 P.3d 948, 950 (Ariz . 2013) (e n

ba nc ). 2. Husse in a sse rts tha

t the distric t c ourt viola

te d his Sixth Ame ndm e nt right to a jury tria l by not submitting the issue of his prior fe l ony c onvic t ion to a jury
. This a rgum e nt is fore c l ose d by

our pre c e de nt. S

e e Stok e s v . Sc hriro , 465 F.3d 397, 401 n. 5 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ Othe r than the fac t of a prior c onv i c tion , any fa c t tha t inc re a se s the pe na l ty

for a c rim e be y ond the pre sc ribe d sta tutory m a xim um m ust be subm itte d to a

jury . . . .” ) (c i tation a

nd first a lte ra tion omi tte d) (e m pha sis in the origina l). 3. Husse in c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt pla inly

e rre d unde r Re haif v

. Unite d State s , 139 S. C t. 2191 (2019), by not re quiring the gove rnm e nt to prove that Husse in kne w he ha d a fe lony c onvic tion. “Unde r pla in-e rror re vie w, [we ]
m ay re ve rse only

whe re the re is a

n (1) e rror that is (2) pla in, (3) a ffe c t s substa ntia l rights, a n d (4) ‘ se riously

a ffe c ts the fa irne ss, inte grity or public re puta

tion of
3judic ia l proc e e d ings. . . .’ ” Unite d State s v . Door , 996 F.3d 606, 618 (9th C ir. 2021) (c ita

tion omitte d), c e rt. de nie d , 142 S. C t. 785 (2022). In a sse ssing Re haif

c onte ntions, we “ c onside r whe the r e vide nc e prove d be y ond a re a sona

b le doubt tha

t De fe nda nt ha d the knowle dge re quire d by Re haif
and tha t a ny e rror wa s not pre

judic ia l.” Unite d State

s v . Pollard

, 20 F.4th 1252, 1256 (9th C ir. 2021) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). W e c onc lude tha

t a ny R e haif e rror wa s ha

rm l e ss in light of Husse in’ s guilty ple a to a ggravate d a ssa

ult a nd his stipula

tion tha t he ha d a prior fe lony c onvic tion. Se e id. at 1256-57 (observing tha t “ a b se nt a ny e vide nc e sugge sting ignora nc e , the jury c an infe r tha

t a de fe n da nt kne w tha

t he . . . wa s a

c onvic te d

fe lon from

the
m e re e xiste nc e of a fe lony c onvic tion a s e vide n c e d by the de fe nda

nt’ s stipula

tion” ) (c ita tion, a lte ra tion, a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). M ore ove r, Husse in ha s not shown tha

t a ny e rror wa s pre

judic ia l, a s the re c ord de m onstra te s tha t Husse in kne w he wa s a fe lon. S

e e id. at 1256. 4. Husse in a sse rts tha

t jurors m ay

have se e n a

holding c e ll be y o nd the doorwa y he use d to e n te r the c ourtroom during tria l. B ut

“ [b] e c a use a jury ’ s brie f or ina dve rte nt glim

pse of a de fe nda nt in phy sic a l re stra ints is not inhe re ntly or pre s um ptive l y pre judic ia l to a

de fe nda nt, [Husse in] m

ust de m o n strat e a c tua l

4pre

j udic e to e sta

blish a c onstitutiona

l viola t ion.” Unite d State

s v . Olano , 62 F.3d 1180, 1190 (9th C ir. 1995) (c ita tions omitte d). Husse in fa ile d to ide ntify any e vide nc e of pre

judic e . Se e id. He sim

ply
argue s tha

t “ four prospe c tive jurors who might ha ve se e n tha t Husse in wa s in
c ustody we re se le c te d a s tria l jurors.” Howe v e r, the distric t c ourt a ske d the jurors whe the r the y

obse rve d a

nything tha

t c a use d the m

c o nc e rn a

bout the ir a

bility to be fa ir, a n d no juror re sponde d in the a ffirm ative . Furthe r, the distric t c o urt instruc te d the j ury tha t a nyt hing “ se e n or he ard whe n the c ourt wa s not in se ssion [wa s] not
e vide nc e ” and tha

t the jury m ust “ de c ide the c a se sole ly on the e vide nc e re c e ive d
at tria l.” Se e Unite d S

t ate s v . Re y e s , 660 F.3d 454, 468 (9th C i r. 2011) (sta ting tha t

“ jurors a re pre sum e d to follow the c ourt’ s instruc tions” ) (c ita tion omi tte d). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing Husse in’ s
m otions for a

m istria l. 5. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to order
a ne wtria l. Evide nc e of possiblem arijua na use by a gove rnm e n t witne ss be fore te stify ing wa s c um

ulative im pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e , a

nd would not like ly

have
re sulte d in a c quitta l ha d it be e n pre se nte d to the jury
. Se e Unite d State s v . Holme

s , 229 F.3d 782, 789 (9th C ir. 2000). AFFIRM E D.
5