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. W . SC OTT HAR

KONEN, M . D., De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-16844

D.C . No. 3:08-c r-00164-R S-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding 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 . Sc ott Ha

rkone n a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his pe tition for a w rit of e rror c oram

nobis. A jury

c onvic te d him

of wire fra

ud in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1343. W e a ffirm e d his c onvic tion on dire c t a p pe a l. W e have 

# F IL ED

DEC 4 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of

Harkone n’ s pe t ition denovo, Unite d State s v. R ie dl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th C ir. 2007), a nd a ffirm . 1. Harkone n c onte nds tha t the Supre m e C ourt, in M a trixx Initia tive s, Inc . v. Sira c usa no, 563 U.S. 27 (2011), a nnounc e d a

ne w rule tha

t re quire s va c a ting his c onvic tion. C o ra m nobis is a n e xtra ordina

ry re m e dy , and a

c oram nobis pe t itione r m ay only re litiga te the m e rits of a

n issue pre viously

de c ide d on dire c t a

ppe a l if he ide n tifie s a

c ha nge in c o ntrolling la

w or m ak e s a

showing of “m anife st injustic e .” Poliz z i v. Unite d State s, 550 F.2d 1133, 1135–36 (9th C ir. 1976). W e pre v iously re je c te d the a

p plic a bility of the M atrixx de c i sion on dire c t a ppe a l. Unite d

State s v. Harkone n, 510 F. App’ x 633, 638 (9th C ir. 2013), c e rt. de n ie d, 134 S. C t. 824 (2013). Ha

rkone n points to no cha

nge in c ontrolling la

w. His proffe re d e vide nc e —

though c om

pe l ling, e spe c ia l ly in light of M a trixx— doe s not e sta blish that his tria l re s ulte d

in a m a n ife st injustic e wa

rranting issua

nc e of the writ.

2. Harkone n c onte nds for the first tim e in his c oram nobis pe tition tha

t his tria l c ounse l’ s pe rform a

nc e wa s c onstitutiona

lly de fic i e nt. His trial c ounse l , Harkone n sa

y s, should ha

v e c a lle d a

n e xpe rt witne ss in biosta tistic s or 2pulm onology to c ha lle n ge the gove rnm e n t’ s c onte ntion tha t Ha rkone n m isre pre se nte d the re sults of a sc ie ntific study

of the drug Ac tim

m une . In pre p aration for tria l, Ha

rkone n’ s de fe nse te am c onsulte d at gre a t le ngth with a num be r of highly

qua lifie d pote ntia l e xpe rt witne s se s, inc luding a biosta tistic ia n and a pulm onologist. B ut on thee ve of the de fe nse c a se in c hie f, tria l c ounse l de c ide d not to c a ll the se e xpe rts, e ve n though they we re pre pa

re d to te stify . In his c losing a rgum e nt, Ha

rkone n’ s tria l c ounse l e xpla ine d: [W ] ay ba c k at the be ginning of the c a se , whe n we didn’ t re a lly know what the e vide nc e [wa s] in this c a se , how it wa s going to be , I told y ou tha t we we re going to c a ll e xpe rts in this c a se . It turne d out tha t our e xpe rts c am e in the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se : Dr. C ra g e r, and by his a bse nc e , Dr. Pe nnington a

nd Dr. B ra dford, a

nd c e rta inly

Dr. Porte r.

“ [S] trate gic c hoic e s m a de a fte r thorough inve stiga tion of la w a nd fa c ts re le va nt to pla usible options a

re virtua lly

unc ha lle n ge a

ble ” on Sixth Am e ndm e nt grounds. Stric kla

n d v. W a shington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984). La te r te stim ony

of the b iosta tistic ia n c onfirm e d t

hat Ha rkone n’ s tria l c ounse l ha d e xpre sse d la st m inute c onc e rns with the s tre ngth a nd foc us of his pla

nne d te stim ony

give n the a ppa re nt suc c e s s of tria l c o unse l’ s c ross e xam inations of thegove rnm e nt’ s e xpe rts. Late r te stim ony of the pulm onologist showe d tha t at le a s t som e of his pla

nne d te stim ony c ould ha ve de tra c te d from Harkone n’ s c a se . And la te r te stim ony of 3Harkone n’ s inde pe n de n t le ga l a dvisor re ve a le d tha t “ [a ] t the tim e , Dr. Ha

rkone n and I both a gre e d tha

t if [tria l c ounse l] ’ s a sse ssm e n t of [the ] da nge rs of c a lling e xpe rt witne sse s [we re ] a c c urate , his de c ision not to c a ll the m wa s c orre c t.” In the s e c irc um sta

nc e s, tria l c ounse l’ s inform e d de c ision not to c a ll a n e xpe rt wa s “ a judgm e nt c a ll within the range of de c isions fa l ling within Strickla nd’ s sta nda rd of c om pe te nt c ounse l,” Ja c kson v. C a lde ron, 211 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th C ir. 2000), not a funda m e n ta l e rror in the proc e e dings wa rranting thee xtra ordina

ry re m e dy

of c oram nobis.

3. Give n the av a ila

bility of am ple e vide nc e from

both side s c onc e rning the de c ision not to pre se nt e xpe rt te stim ony — inc l uding sworn de c la

ra tions from Harkone n’ s de fe nse te a

m , his inde

pe nde nt le ga l a dvisor, a

nd the e xpe rt witne sse s the d e fe nse te am

c hose not to c a ll—

the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in de c lining to hold a

n e vide n t ia

ry he aring. Ha

rkone n’ s c onte ntion tha

t his tria l c ounse l m isjudge d the ne e d for e xpe rt te stim ony , e v e n if prove n, would not entitle him to re lie f in the se c irc um sta n c e s. 1

1 B e c a use we hold tha

t Ha rkone n fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t his tria l re sulte d in m anife s t injustic e ; fa ile d to show his tria l c o unse l’ s de c ision not to c a ll a n e xpe rt witne s s wa s not a

judgm e nt c a l l by

c om pe te nt c ounse l; a

nd fa i le d to show the distric t c o urt a

buse d its disc re tion in de c lining to hold a n e vide ntia

ry he aring, we ne e d not re a c h whe t

he r his pe tition for c o ra m nobis wa s tim e ly . 4AFFIRM E D.

5