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. KENNETH W

AYNE M O R GAN, Jr., De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10441

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-01126-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, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

15, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD a

nd WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s , a nd M O RR IS, * * Distric t Judge
. De fe nda

nt Ke nne th M orga

n, Jr. a ppe a l s his jury

c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e for
a ssa ult re sulting in se

rious bodily

injury
. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm
. 

# F IL ED SEP 19 2017 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 B rian M . M o rris, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M onta

na , sitting by

de signa tion.1. The distric t c ourt did not c le a rly e rr whe n it re

j e c te d M orga

n’ s a sse rtion tha

t inte ntiona l disc rim ination m otiva t e d the gove rnm e nt’ s pe re m ptory strike of an Asia

n-Am e ric an prospe c tive juror. The judge de te rm ine d tha t the gove rnm e nt prope rly

struc k the juror be c a

use she pre viously ha d se rve d on a hung jury and she ha d e xpre sse d c onc e rns a bout how fa irly the de fe nda nt in tha t c a se ha d be e n tre ate d. The distric t c ourt’ s de te rm inat ion on disc rim inatory inte nt
re pre se nts a

“ finding of fa c t

e ntitle d to de fe re nc e .” Unite d State s v . Ste e le , 298 F.3d 906, 910 (9th C ir. 2002). Se rvic e on a hung jury

re pre se nts a le gitim ate
re a s on to e xe rc ise a pe re m ptory strike
. Se e Unite d State

s v . C h angc o , 1 F.3d 837, 840 (9th C i r. 1993) (a

n “ ina bility to re late to othe r jurors” is a va lid, ra c e -ne utra l
re a s on for e xc luding a prospe c t ive juror). He sita tion re g a rding thefa irne ss of c rim ina l proc e e dings a lso provide s a prope r ba sis for a

pe re m ptory strike
. S e e Briggs v . Grounds , 682 F.3d 1165, 1174 (9th C ir. 2012) (holding “ t he prose c ution to a

highe r burde n of proof tha n the la w re quire d” is a

va lid, ra c e -ne utra l re a son for e xc luding a juror). Furthe r, c onc e rn a bout a juror’ s fe e lings re g arding thefa irne ss of c rim ina l proc e e d ings c orre sponds with a va lid for-c a

use re a son to strike a

juror— the ina b ility of a juror to befa ir to the d e fe nda

nt. Se e He rnande

z v . N e w York , 500 U.S. 352, 362–63 (1991). As note d by the Supre m e C ourt in He rnande z “ the re a son offe re d by

the prose c utor
2for a p e re m

ptory strike ne e d

not rise to the le ve l of a

c ha lle nge for c a

use , the fa c t that it c orre sponds to a

va lid for-c a

use c ha lle n ge will de m onstra t e its ra c e -ne utra l
c ha ra c te r.” Id. (inte rna l c ita

tions omitte d). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de nie d M orga n’ s
m otion to give

a se lf-de fe nse instruc tion to the jury . A c rim i na l de fe nda nt posse s se s a

c o nstitutiona

l right to ha

ve the jury instruc te d on his de fe nse if the la w supports the

re que ste d instruc tion a

nd it ha s som e founda

t ion in thee v ide nc e , e ve n if tha t e vide nc e is “ we a

k, insuffic ie nt, inc onsiste nt, or of doubtful cre dibility .” Unite d State s v . Sanc h e

z-Lima , 161 F.3d 545, 549 (9th C ir. 1998) (inte rna l
c ita tions a nd quota tions omitte d ). The “ m e re st sc intilla of e vide nc e ” fa lls short. Unite d State s v . J a c k s on , 726 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th C ir. 1984). Thedistric t judge
c orre c tly found tha

t no re c ord e vide nc e e xiste d to support a se lf-de fe nse instruc tion. 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it ove rrule d M orga n’ s obje c tion to the

gove rnm e nt’ s a s se rtion tha t the de fe nda

nt “ wa s sla shing
at the vic tim ” during c l osing a n d re butta l a

rgum e nts. Theprose c utor’ s sta te m e nts
re pre se nte d re a sona

b le infe re nc e s from

the e v ide nc e . Prose c utors e njoy

“ re a sona bly wide latitude ” in fa shioning c losing a rgum e nt. Unite d

State s v . Gorostiza , 468 F.2d 915, 916 (9th C ir. 1972) (pe r c uriam ). A prose c utor m ay
3“ strike ha

rd blows” ba se d

on the e vide nc e and a ll re a sona ble infe re nc e s de rive d the re from
. Unite d State

s v . Tuc k e r , 641 F.3d 1110, 1120 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l quota t ion om itte d). 4. The prose c ution did not viola te M orga n’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt right to due proc e ss by

singling him

out for his “ India

n blood.”W e and the Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt ha

ve a ffirm e d tha

t 18 U.S.C . § 1153 doe s not viola te de fe n da

nts’ rights by singling them

out ba se d on the i r ra c e . Se e Unite d State s v . Ante lope , 430 U.S. 641, 645–47 (1977); Unite d State s v . Ze pe da , 792 F.3d 1103, 1111–13 (9th C ir. 2015) (e n ba

nc ), c e rt. de n i e d , 136 S. C t. 1712 (2016). “ [F] e de ra l re gula tion of India n a ffa irs is not ba se d upon im pe rm issible c la ssific ations. Rathe r, suc h
re gula tion is roote d in the unique sta tus of India

n s a s ‘ a se pa rate pe ople ’ with the ir own politic a l institutions.” Id. (quoting Ante lope , 430 U.S. a t 646). 5. The c um

ulative e ffe c t of e rror did not deprive M o rgan of a fa ir tria l. B e c a use the distric t c ourt c om m itte d no e rror, the re c an be no c um u l ative e ffe c t. 6. The distric t c ourt c om m itte d no proc e dura l e rror and did not a buse its disc re tion whe n

it e nha nc e d M o rgan’ s se nte nc e unde r the Se nte nc ing Guide line s ba se d on the a lle gat ion tha t he ha d posse sse d a da

nge rous we a

pon, a l though the jury a c quitte d him

of tha t c ha rge . No Sixth Am e ndm e nt viola tion oc c urs “ whe n

4se nte nc ing judge s c onside r c onduc t unde rly ing a c quitte d c ounts.” Unite d State s v . Me rc ado , 474 F.3d 654, 657–58 (9th C ir. 2007). 7. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr whe n it im

p ose d supe rvise d
re le a se c onditions re quiring M orga n to m e e t “ fam ily

re sponsibilitie s,” “ work
re gula rly ,” an d pe rm i t a

probation offic e r to visit “ at a ny tim e ” and c onfisc ate

“ c o ntra b and.” The c onditions a

re a p propria te give n the fa c ts a

nd c irc um s ta

nc e s of the c a se , a

nd a re “ re a s ona

bly re late d to thegoa ls of de te rre nc e , prote c t ion of the public , or re ha

bilita tion of theoffe nde r.” Unite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 982 (9th C i r. 2009). No c ontrolling pre c e de nt e xiste d re ve rsing thesta nda rd and
c om m only im pose d c onditions on the

grounds of va g u e ne ss or ove rbre a dth a t the tim e the distric t c ourt issue d its de c ision. Se e Unite d State s v . Gnirk e , 775 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Unite d State s v . Gonzale

z-Aparic io , 663 F.3d 419, 428 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ An e rror ‘ c annot be pla in whe re the re is no c ontrolling
a uthority on point a

nd whe re the m ost c lose ly ana logous pre c e de nt le a d s to
c onflic ting re sults.’ ” )). AFFIRM E D.

5