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. R OY SC OTT FRITTS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30301

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00033-JLR -2 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 2, 2015 ** Se attle W a shington B e fore : B EA a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOB AYASHI, Distric t Judge . *** R oy Sc ott Fritts a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e for c onspira c y to



# F IL ED FEB 20 2015 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Le slie E. Koba

y a shi, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion.a ssa

ult a fe de ra l offic e r, and a ssa

ult on a fe de ra l offic e r with a

da n ge rous we a

pon, in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 111(a)(1), (b), 371. Fritts c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a dm itting opinion te stim ony , c om m e nting on the

e vide n c e to the jury , a nd re quiring Fritts to a

ppe ar for se nte nc ing in sha c kle s . W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in perm itting fe l low inm ate Garre tt R ise r to te stify

tha t Fritts wa s “ sta

nding wa tc h” during thea ssa

ult of Offic e r M anua l M a xwe ll be c a use the c ourt re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t de fe nse c ounse l “ ope ne d the door” to tha t opinion during he

r ope ning sta

te m e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Osazuw a , 564 F.3d 1169, 1175–76 (9th C ir. 2009). Eve n if the distric t c o urt ha d e rre d, in light of the am p le e vide nc e of Fritts’ involve m e nt in the a ssa ult, inc luding surve illa

nc e vide o a

nd the te stim ony

of m ultiplewitne sse s, we would c onc lude tha

t the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. Se e Unite d State

s v . Gadson , 763 F.3d 1189, 1208 (9th C ir. 2014). The distric t c ourt did not c om m it pla in e rror in c om

m e nting on the

e vide nc e sinc e the c om

m e nt did not c re ate an a

ppe aranc e of pa

rtia lity , In reHanford N uc le ar Re se rv a tion Litig. , 534 F.3d 986, 1015 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd the c o urt ga

ve num e rous c urative instruc t ions, Unite d State s v . Morgan , 376 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th C ir. 2004). M ore ove r, due to the ove rwhe lm ing e vide nc e of Fritts’ guilt, there is no “ ‘ re a sona

ble proba bility tha t but-for the e rror c la i m e d, the re sult of the

2proc e e ding would ha v e be e n diffe re nt.’ ” Unite d State s v . K y le , 734 F.3d 956, 966 (9th C ir. 2013) (a lte ration omitte d) (quoting U nite d State

s v . Domingue

z Be nite z , 542 U.S. 74, 81–83 (2004)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in perm itting Fritts to a ppe ar for his se nte nc ing be fore the c ourt in sha c k le s. Spain v
. Rushe n , 883 F.2d 712, 716 (9th C i r. 1989). Thedistric t c ourt’ s de c ision wa s ba se d on these c urity re c o m m e ndation of theUnite d Stat e s M arsha ls, in light of Fritts’ history of viole nc e a ga inst public offic ia ls. Unite d State s v . How ard, 480 F.3d 1005, 1013–14 (9th C ir. 2007). Furthe r, Fritts doe s not a rgue tha t he suffe re d

any pre j udic e a s a

re sult of there stra ints. AFFIRM E D .

3