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 ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. KEITH LEON SM ITH, AKA C hristophe r Griffe n , AKA C hris Griffin, AKA C hristophe r Griffin, AKA Ke n Sm ith, AKA Ke nne th Anthony

Sm i th, AKA Le on Sm ith, De fe nda

nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50158

D.C . No. 2:15-c r-00367-R GK
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 R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d & Subm itte d Oc t obe r 11, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and NGUYEN, C irc u it Judge s, a nd SIM ON, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED OCT 24 2018 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 M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Unite d State s Distric t Judgefor the Distric t of Ore g o n, sitting by de signa tion.Ke ith Le on Sm ith a ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e for a ssa

u lting a fe de ra l offic e r in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 111(a)(1) and (b). The inc ide nt oc c urre d
a fte r offic e rs loc ate d Sm i th in C arson, C a lifornia , two y e ars a fte r he a bsc onde d from fe de ra l supe rvise d re le a se . Whe n the offic e rs bloc ka de d his va n, Sm ith
a c c e le rate d a

nd drove dire c tly

towa rd De puty B e e le r, c a

using B e e le r to jum

p out of ha rm ’ s wa y . On a ppe a l, Sm ith c ha lle nge s the me n s re a jury instruc tion, c onte nding it did not a de quate ly instruc t the jury on the inte nt re q

uire d for a

n “ inte nt to frighten” the o ry of a ssa ult. Not only did Sm ith wa i ve this obje c tion by fa i ling to obje c t on this ba sis be l ow, but thetwo re le va nt jury instruc tions (Instruc t ions 29 a n d 30), whe n re a d toge the r, do not missta te the la w. Sm ith a l so a

rgue s tha t the jury la c ke d suffic i e nt e vide nc e to c onc lude tha t he inte nde d to do a

nything other tha

n fle e . B ut the re c ord c onta ins m ore tha n e nough e vide nc e to c onc lude tha t whe n Sm ith
a c c e le rate d his va

n towa rds B e e le r, Sm i th inte nde d to frighte n B e e le r. Sm ith ne xt c o nte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d at se nte nc ing in finding, by
a pre ponde ran c e of the e vide nc e , tha t he inte nde d to injureB e e le r— a pre re quisite to a p ply ing thea ggravate d a ssa ult guide line
. Although the jury did not find such inte nt be y ond a

re a s ona ble doubt, there c ord m ore tha n supports the c ourt’ s finding
at se nte nc ing unde r the pre ponde ranc e -of-the -e vide nc e sta nda rd.
2Apply ing both the a ggrav ate d a ssa

ult guide line (U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2), a nd the da nge rous we a

pon e nha nc e m e nt (U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B )) did not im pe rm issibly punish Smith twic e for the sa m e c onduc t be c a

use the guide line and
e nha nc e m e nt foc us on diffe re nt a spe c ts of Sm ith’ s c onduc t: The guide line a pplie s be c a use the a s sa

ult inv olv e d t

he use of a

va n with intent to injure ; the e nha nc e m e nt
a pplie s be c a

use Sm ith a c tua lly use d the va n a s a we a pon by a c c e le rating towa

rd B e e le r. Se eUnite d State

s v . Re e se , 2 F.3d 870, 896 (9th C i r. 1993). Fina lly , Sm ith wa ive d his a rgum e nt tha

t the gove rnm e nt should ha ve disc lose d the first gra

nd jury tra nsc ript whe n he withdre w the re q ue st be low. Se e Unite d State s v . Manarite , 44 F.3d 1407, 1419 n.18 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ [W ] ithdra wa l of an obje c tion is ta

nta m ount to a

wa ive r of an issuefor a

ppe a l.” ); Unite d State

s v . Moore , 653 F.2d 384, 389–90 (9th C ir. 1981). Additiona lly , a ny proble m

with the te stim ony of a witne ss in thefirst gra

n d jury proc e e dings c ould not ha ve re s ulte d in
re ve rsible e rror: Sm ith wa s trie d a fte r a se c ond gra

nd jury inde pe nde ntly

indic te d him without he aring from

tha t witne ss, a

nd the tria l jury

c onvic te d on a

sim i la r re c o rd. AFFIRM E D.

3