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. C LIFTON JAM ES JAC K SON,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-10277

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-00142-HDM -C B C -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C LIFTON JAM ES JAC K SON,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-10278

D.C . No. 3:18-c r-00105-HDM -W GC -1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 8, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED DEC 22 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.B e fore : LUC ER O, ** W
. FLETC HER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt C lifton Ja c k son a

ppe a ls his c o nvic tion a

nd se nte nc e for unla

wful posse s sion of a

fire arm , 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd a ffirm
. 1. Re haif v . Unite d State

s , 139 S. C t. 2191 (2019), did not re quire the distric t
c ourt to va c ate De fe nda

nt’ s unla wful fire a rm posse ssion c o nvic tion. First, the indic tm e nt’ s om ission of the e le m e nt tha

t de fe nda nt “ k ne w he be longe d to the
re le va nt c at e gory

of pe rsons ba

rre d from posse ssing a

fire arm ” in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1), did not de prive the distric t c ourt of jurisdic tion. Se e Unite d State s v . C otton , 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) (“ [D] e fe c ts in a n indic tm e nt do not de prive a c ourt of its power to a djudic at e a c a se .” ).

* * The Honora

ble C arlos F. Luc e ro, Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion. 2Se c ond, De fe nda nt’ s Re haif

c ha lle nge to the indic tm e nt a nd jury instruc tions fa ils pla in e rror re v ie w. 1 As this c ourt note d in Unite d State s v . K ing , “ J ohnson
re solve s this c a se . ” 979 F.3d 1218, 1220 (9th C ir. 2020). Pursua nt to Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 979 F.3d 632 (9th C ir. 2020), thepa ne l m ay re vie w the e ntire
re c o rd on a

ppe a l . The inquiry

is “ if the de fe n da

nts’ c onvic tions we re re v e rse d a nd the p rose c ution or trial ha d to sta rt ove r, [would] the outc om e pote ntia lly be any diffe re nt [? ] ” J

ohnson , 979 F.3d a

t 638. De fe nda

nt c annot show tha

t anonde fe c tive indic t

m e nt/instruc tion would ha ve produc e d a

diffe re nt re sult. The
re c o rd on a

ppe a l c onta ins e vide nc e tha t the gove rnm e nt c ould ha ve introduc e d to prove that De fe nda

nt kne w of his sta

tus a s a c onvic te d fe l on. As in J

ohnson and

1 De fe nda nt a rgue s the de fe c tive indic tm e nt c onstitute s struc tura l e rror a s it pre s e nts c onstitutiona

l issue s. W e disa gre e . Se e N e de r v . Unite d State

s , 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (noting tha

t m ost “ c onstitutiona

l e rrors are ha

rm le ss” an d

tha t e rrors are s truc t ura l, a nd thus subje c t to a

utom atic re ve rsa l, in a

“ ve ry lim ite d c la ss of c a se s” (c i tation omi tte d)). B e c a use the e rrors of whic h De fe nda nt c om pla ins a re e rrors “ in the tria l proc e ss itse l f” an d not “ de fe c t [s] a ffe c ting the fram e work within whic h the tria l proc e e ds,” this is not one of the “ ra re situa tions” that m andat e s a pre s um ption of pre

judic e . Id. at 9, 13 (c ita

tion omitte d). W e a lso re

je c t De fe nda

nt’ s a rgum e nt, ra i se d for the first tim e during ora l argum e nt, tha

t De fe nda nt pre se rve d his Re haif

insuffic ie nc y

c ha lle nge (and thus that we should re vie w tha

t issue denov o ) by

bringing a

ge ne ra l R

ule 29 m otion be low, e ve n though tha

t m otion wa s not ba se d

on Re haif

or the knowle d ge -ofsta tus issuehe now ra ise s. K i ng , 979 F.3d a

t 1219 (“ [P] la in-e rror re v i e w a pplie s whe n the de fe nda

nt fa ils to c ha lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s om ission of the knowle dge -of-status e le m e nt now re quire d unde r Re haif. ” (quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d )). 3K

ing , De fe nda

nt’ s unc o ntrove rte d pre se nte nc e re port shows tha t at the tim e he posse s se d the fire arm , he ha d a lre a dy susta ine d four othe r fe lony c onvic tions, one of whic h wa s a

prior fe lon in posse ssion c ha rge . De fe nda

nt thus c annot pla

usibly
argue that a

jury would find he

wa s una ware of his sta

t us. 2. De fe nda

nt wa s not deprive d of his sta tutory or c onstitutiona

l rights to a spe e dy tria l . The Spe e dy

Tria l Ac t re quire s tha

t a c rim ina l tria l c om

m e nc e within
se ve nty da y s of a de fe nda nt’ s initial a

ppe aranc e or indic tm e nt. 18 U.S.C
. § 3161(c )(1). C e rta in ty

pe s of de la

y s a re e xc luda

ble from the c a lc ulation. Id. § 3161(h). A judge

m ay issue a spe e dy tria l c ontinua

nc e , but no suc h c ontinua nc e
m ay be grante d for “ la c k of dilige nt pre pa rat ion or fa ilure to obta in a va ila ble witne s se s on the pa

rt of the attorne y

for the Gove rnm e nt.” Id. § 3161(h)(7)(C ). De fe nda nt fa i le d to show tha

t the c ontinua

n c e wa s due to the gove rnm e nt’ s la c k of dilige n t pre pa

ration. To the

c ontra ry , the re c o rd shows tha

t the gove rnm e nt wa s

“ working e xte nsive ly ” to a void a disc o ve ry

de l ay , but e nc o unte re d una voida ble bure a u c ratic hurdle s outsideof its c ontrol. De fe nda nt a lso ha s a

“ funda m e nta l” right to a spe e dy

tria l unde r the Sixth Am e ndm e nt. K

lopfe r v . State

of N
. C
. , 386 U.S. 213, 223 (1967). The Supre m e C ourt ha s e sta

blishe d a four-pa rt te st to e va luate c la im s unde r the Sixth Am e ndm e nt. B ark

e r v . W ingo , 407 U.S. 514, 533 (1972). He re , the first Bark

e r
4fa c t or, the le ngth of thede la y , is dispositive . De fe nda nt’ s tria l wa s de la

y e d fourm onths. This is too short a de la y to trigge r a

Sixth Am e ndm e nt

viola tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Turne r , 926 F.2d 883, 889 (9th C ir. 1991). 3. The distric t c ourt a c t e d within its disc re tion whe n

it a llowe d witne sse s to te stify a bout he aring shots fire d . The e vide nc e wa s re le va nt be c a use it te n d e d to prove that De fe nda

nt posse sse d a

gun in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1). Like wise , the e vide nc e wa s not unfa irly pre judic ia l a s its proba

tive va lue wa s not substa ntia lly outwe ighe d by

the da n ge r of unfa ir pre

judic e . C f. Unite d State

s v . Espinoza-Baza , 647 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2011) (finding evide nc e unfa irly pre j udic i a l be c a

u se the re c ord did not c onta in ne c e ssa ry a dditional fa c ts). Furthe r, the e vide n c e wa s not prohibite d ba d-a c t e vide nc e . The e vide nc e wa s re late d to the
c rim e c ha rge d a nd pa rt of the c ha in of e v e nts tha t le d to De fe nda

nt’ s a rre s t a nd
c onvic tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Daly , 974 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th C i r. 1992). Fina lly , a dm ission of the

e vide n c e did not viola

te De fe nda

nt’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt
c onfronta tion rights. De fe nda

nt de m onstra

te d through c ross e xam inat ion tha t the shots-fire d e vide nc e wa s inc onsiste nt with other e vide nc e in the c a se , a nd he wa s
a ble to im pe a c h the re le v ant witne sse s. 4. The distric t c ourt a c t e d within its disc re tion by re fra ining from

giving a n Alle n c ha rge or de c l aring a

m istria l. W

hile the jury

a ppe are d de a d loc ke d, the re is
5no pe r se re quire m e nt tha t a judge give an Alle n instruc t ion to a de a dloc ke d jury
. M ore im p orta nt, the re is no showing tha t the instruc tions thejudge gave to the de a dloc ke d jury

we re unduly

c oe rc ive
. Se e Unite d State s v . He rnande

z-Guardado , 228 F.3d 1017, 1029 (9th C ir. 2000). 5. Suffic ie nt e vide nc e supports the fe lon-in-posse ssion c ha rge and the
re voc ation of supervise d re l e a se . First, thee vide nc e at tria l supporte d

the jury ’ s ve rdic t tha

t De fe nda nt knowingly

posse sse d the fire arm

— an e y e witne ss sa

w De fe nda nt c arry ing a gun, he a

rd shots fire d, a

nd the n c a l le d 911. Se c ond, the distric t c o urt prope rly

found tha

t De fe nda nt viola te d supe rvision by

c om m itting a
ne w (and se c ond) fe de ra l offe nse . 6. B e c a use the distric t c ourt did not err (or any e rrors we re ha

rm le ss), the re wa s no c um

ulative e rror. S

e e Unite d State

s v . Fe rnande

z , 388 F.3d 1199, 1256–57 (9th C ir. 2004). 7. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly inc re a se d De fe nda

nt’ s offe n se le v e l unde r the Se nte n c i ng Guide l ine s. De fe nda nt a rgue s tha t Re haif a pplie s to them e ns re a re quire d for U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)’ s stole n fire arm e nha nc e m e nt. W e re c e ntly
re a ffirm e d the va lidity of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4) a nd he l d tha

t it doe s not c onta in a
sc ie nte r re quire m e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Prie n-Pinto , 917 F.3d 1155, 1156–61 (9th C ir. 2019). Re haif

doe s not a ffe c t Prie n-Pinto ’ s holding.

68. The distric t c ourt a c t e d within its disc re tion whe n

it im pose d a supe rvise d
re le a se risk notific ation c o ndition. This c ourt ha s a lre a dy a ffirm e d the use of the
c ha lle nge d c ondition. S

e e Unite d State

s v . Ev ans , 883 F.3d 1154, 1164 (9th C ir. 2018) (finding the

c ondition c o nstitutiona

l); U nite d State

s v . Ose gue ra , 793 F. App’ x 579, 581 (9th C i r. 2020). 9. W e re m and for re se nte nc ing on thesupe rvise d re le a se re voc at ion. The Probation Offic e r m ista

ke nly ba se d the re voc ation ra

nge on a C rim i na l History C ate gory IV and re c om

m e nde d a 12–18 m onth ra

nge . This mista

ke we nt unnotic e d, a

n d the distric t c ourt a dopte d the guide line range and im pose d a n 18-
m onth high-e nd c onse c utive se nte nc e . The c orre c tly c a lc ulate d

range should ha

ve be e n 8–14 m onths. B oth pa rtie s a gre e tha

t this c ourt should re m and for
re se nte nc ing on thesupe rvise d re le a se re v oc ation. Se e Rosale s -Mire le s v . Unite d State s , 138 S. C t. 1897, 1903 (2018). W e the re fore a ffirm

De fe nda nt’ s c onvic tion, va c ate the supe rvise d re le a se viola tion se nte nc e , a

nd orde r a

lim ite d re m a

n d to a llow thedistric t

c ourt to
re se nte nc e De fe nda

nt for the supe rvise d re le a se viola tion. AFFIRM E D in pa

rt, VACAT E D in pa

rt, a nd RE M ANDE D.

7