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. LEONEL M AR IN-TORR ES,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-30044

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00038-HZ-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 Ore gon M arc o A
. He rnande z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 9, 2016 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : M c K EOW

N, W . FLETC HER

and FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Le one l M a

rin-Torre s a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion for a ssa ult with a da n ge rous
we a pon with intent to do bodily ha rm in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 113(a )(3) a nd 7(3) a nd posse s sion of prison c ontra ba nd in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1791(a )(2),



# FIL ED
N OV 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).(b)(3), (d)(1)(B ) and 7(3). M arin-Torre s c onte n ds he wa s e ffe c tive ly de nie d his right to repre se nt him se lf in viola tion of theSixth Am e ndm e n t, se e Fare t ta v
. C alifornia , 422 U.S. 806, 821 (1975), be c a u se the distric t c ourt de nie d him
a de quate a c c e ss to disc ove ry . M arin-Torre s, whose is Spa n i sh spe a king, prim arily
c onte sts the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his re que s t to ha v e a c om p le te se t of tra

nsla te d disc ove ry and the c ourt’ s e ntry

of a prote c t ive orde r prohibiting him from re ta ining disc ove ry m a te ria ls in his c e ll. “ W e re vie w de nov o whe the r the re ha s be e n a viola tion of . . . the

Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to make a de fe nse [,] ” Unite d State

s v . Ste v e r , 603 F.3d 747, 752 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd we a ffirm
. M arin-Torre s’ right to se lf-re p re se ntation unde r F a re t ta ne c e ssa

rily inc lude s the right to pre

pa re a de fe nse . S

e e Milton v . Morris , 767 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th C ir. 1985). This right inc lude s “ tim e to pre p a re and som e a c c e s s to m a te ria l s a nd witne s se s” but “ is not unlim ite d.” Id. “ Se c urity

c onside ra tions a

nd a voida nc e of
a buse b y opportunistic

or va c illa ting de fe nda

nts m ay re quire spe c ia l a d

justm e nts.” Id. He re , the distric t c ourt a p pointe d sta ndby c ounse l, bilingual inte rpre te rs a nd inve stiga tors to a s sist M a

rin-Torre s with his re vie w of disc ove ry m a te ria ls. The distric t c o urt a lso a llowe d M arin-Torre s to ha

ve ke y doc um e nts tra

nsla te d into Spanish. Prisone r a

nd offic e r sa fe ty re quire d re stric ting M arin-Torre s’ a bility to 2re ta in a

nd re v ie w m a te ria l s outsideof the pre se nc e of his de fe nse te am . The se

“ spe c ia l a djustm e nts” we re ba se d on le gitim a te se c urity c o nc e rns. M arin-Torre s re s ponde d to the se a c c om m odations by

re pe a te dly obstruc ting his de fe nse te am ’ s e fforts to re vie w disc ove ry with him , e le c ting to prote s t his
unre quite d de m ands ra

t he r tha n work within the

re a sona ble c onfine s se t by

the distric t c o urt. To the e xte nt M arin-Torre s wa s not pre pa re d to pre se nt a

de fe nse a t tria l , it wa s the re sult of his own choic e s. W e c annot fa ult the distric t

judge , who
e xhibite d c om m e nda b le patie n c e in a

tte m pting to a c c om

m odate M arin-Torre s’
re que s ts a nd his right to pre s e nt a

de fe nse . AFFIRM E D.

3