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 ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DENNIS J. C L INTON, AKA De nnis Le e C linton, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50579

D.C . No. 8:08-c r-00176-DOC -7 M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. W ILLIAM JOSEPH FER R Y, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50582

D.C . No. 8:08-c r-00176-DOC -5

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED OCT 29 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.Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2015 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : IKUTA a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s and SESSIONS, *** Distric t Judge . De nnis C l inton a

nd W illia m Fe rry a p pe a l c onvic tions for c onspira c y , m a il fraud, a nd wire fra

ud. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts, we do not re c o unt the m

e xc e pt a s ne c e ssa

ry . Ha ving jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, we re je c t the a ppe lla nts’ c la im s a

nd a ffirm . First, we de c line to a ddre ss C linton’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l c la im .

“ ‘ As a g e ne ra l rule ,’ we do not re vie w [the se ] c la im s on dire c t a ppe a l ” and ne ithe r e xc e ption to the

rule a p plie s he re . Se eUnite d

State s v . Be nford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th C ir. 2009). Se c ond, the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in e xc luding e vide nc e of a c o -de fe nda

nt’ s dismissa l a s m ore pre judic ia l tha

n proba tive . The dism i ssa l wa s not proba

tive of the a

ppe lla nts’ guilt or innoc e nc e and e vide nc e of the dism issa l c re ate d a

n “ undue te nde nc y ” tha

t the jury would re ly

on a n im prope r

** 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Distric t Judgefor the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de signa tion. 1 3 - 5 0 5 7 9 2ba sis to de c ide the c a se . Se eUnite d State s v . Gonzale

z-Flore s , 418 F.3d 1093, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005); U

nite d State

s v . Hitt , 981 F.2d 422, 424 (9th C ir. 1992). Third, thedistric t c ourt did not err whe n it he ld a n e x pa rte he aring with the gove rnm e nt c onc e rning thec o-de fe nda nt’ s dismissa l. The distric t c ourt prope rly re vie we d the gove rnm e nt’ s re a s ons for dismissing the c o-de fe nda

nt in c am e ra

to de te rm i ne if the inform at ion wa s e xc ulpa tory , a nd a s a re sult would ne e d to be disc lose d to the de fe nda

nt. Se eBrady

v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Unite d State s v . Alv are

z , 358 F.3d 1194, 1208–09 (9th C ir. 2004). Fourth, the transc ript of thee x pa rte he aring should re m a in se a le d. Afte r de te rm i ning tha

t the tra nsc ript wa s not re le va

nt to thede fe nda

nts’ de fe n se , a

nd the re fore not Brady m ate ria l, the distric t c o urt ha d no obliga

tion to re le a se it. Se e Alv a re z , 358 F.3d a

t 1208. Appe lla nt’ s m o t ion for judic ia l notic e is de nie d. AFFIRM E D .

1 3 - 5 0 5 7 9 3