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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. LOUIS M IC HAEL HEALY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30226

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-00007-DLC -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 M o nta

na Dana L. C hriste nse n, C h ie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 11, 2014 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PAEZ, W

ATFORD , a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Louis M ic ha e l He a ly

a ppe a ls his jury

c onvic tion a

nd 327-m onth se n te nc e for a s sa ult re sulting in se

rious bodily

injury , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1153(a) and 113(a )(6), a g g ravate d se xua l a b use , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1153(a) and



# FIL ED JUL 15 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 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).2241(a )(2), and a b usive se xua l c onta c t, in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1153(a) and 2244(b). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo c la im s of insuffic ie nt e vide nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Be nne tt , 621 F.3d 1131, 1135 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion whe the r a se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble . Se e Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We a ffirm . He a ly c onte nds tha

t the re is insuffic i e nt e vide nc e to support e a c h of his thre e c onvic tions. Vie wing the e v i de nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution, we c onc lude tha

t a rationa l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of a ll thre e c rim e s be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt. Se e J

a c k s on v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). On his c onvic tion for a ssa ult re sulting in se

rious bodily

injury , He a l y

argue s that the re is insuffic ie nt e vide nc e tha t the vic tim

suffe re d a “ se rious bodily

injury .” 18 U.S.C . §§ 113(a)(6), 113(b)(2), 1365(h)(3) (de fining “ se rious bodily injury ” a s bodily injury tha t involve s, a

m o ng othe r things, “ substa ntia l risk of de ath” or

“ e x tre m e phy sic a l pa in” ). Howe ve r, a rationa l jury

c ould ha ve found be y ond a re a s ona ble doubt tha

t He a ly ’ s c hoking thevic tim to the point of unc onsc iousne ss involve d a

“ substa ntia l risk of de ath,” or tha t the vic tim ’ s injurie s to he r throat, he a d, a nd va gina c a use d “ e xtre m e phy sic a l pa in.” Se e Unite d State s v . Mejia1 3 - 3 0 2 2 6 2Luna , 562 F.3d 1215, 1222 (9th C ir. 2009) (e x iste nc e of a se rious bodily injury

is a que stion for the jury

de pe n de nt upon a

n e va luation of a ll of the c irc um sta nc e s a nd the j ury ’ s own judgm e nt). For his a ggravate d se xua l a buse c onvic tion, He a ly

c onte nds tha

t the re is insuffic ie nt e vide nc e tha

t he c a use d the vic t im

to e n ga ge in a

se xua l a c t “ by thre ate ning or pla c ing [he r] in fe ar that a ny pe rson will besubje c te d to de at h, se rious bodily injury , or kidna pping.” 18 U.S.C . § 2241(a)(2). Howe ve r, ba se d on the v ic tim ’ s te s tim ony , a

rationa l jury

c o uld ha ve found this e le m e nt be y o nd a re a s ona ble doubt. Se e Unite d State s v . Gudino , 432 F.2d 433, 434 (9th C ir. 1970) (pe r c uriam ) (“ The te stim ony of the one witne ss, if be l ie ve d, [is] suffic i e nt to support [a ] c onvic tion, a

nd the re solution of a

ny que stion a s to [the witne ss’ s] c re d ibility

[is] prope rly

e ntruste d to thejury .” ). M ore ove r, the te stim ony of nurse s and ne ighbors c orroborat e d the vic tim ’ s te stim ony . He a ly a lso a rgue s tha t the re is insuffic ie nt e vide nc e tha t the se xua l c onta c t wa s “ without [the

vic tim ’ s] pe rm ission” for his a busive se xua l c o nta c t c o nvic tion. 18 U.S.C . § 2244(b). Thevic tim te stifie d tha

t she re pe ate dly

told He a ly

to stop and tha t the se xua l c onta c t wa s without her pe rm ission. Other witne sse s c orroborate d he r te stim ony . A rationa l jury c ould ha ve found be y ond a re a sona ble

1 3 - 3 0 2 2 6 3doubt tha

t the se xua l c onta c t

wa s without the

vic tim ’ s pe rm ission. Se e Gudino , 432 F.2d a

t 434. Fina lly , He a ly

c onte nds tha

t his se n te nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble . He a ly ’ s se nte nc e , a lthough a t the high e nd of the a dvisory Guide line s ra

nge , is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte nc ing fa c tors a nd the t ota lity of the c irc um sta n c e s, inc luding He a ly ’ s viole nt offe nse c o nduc t a nd c rim ina l history of two prior se xua l a ssa u lts. Se e Gall , 552 U.S. a t 51. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 0 2 2 6 4