1

In st . of Cetacean R es earc h v. S ea Sh eph erd Con se rv ation S oc’y , N o. 12- 35266: M . S M I T H , C ir c u it J u d g e , c o n c u rr in g in p a rt a n d d is s e n tin g in p a rt: I c onc uri n both the r e a s oni ng a nd the j udgm e ntof the pa ne l opi ni on, re vers i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of C et ac ean’ s pi ra cycl ai m s, and i t s f ai l ure to g r a n t C e ta c e a n ap r e lim in a ry in ju n c tio n . E v e n if

o n e b e lie v e s it is b a rb a r ic to ha rve s tw ha l e s f

ora ny purpos e a tthe be gi nni ng of the 21s tc e ntury , a s pr a c t i c e d by C e ta c e a n , it is c le a r ly p e rm itte d u n d e rin te rn a tio n a l la w . See Int ernat i on al C onve nt i on f

orthe R e gul a t i on of

W ha l i ng a rt . V I I I , D e c . 2, 1946, 62 S t a t . 1716, 1 6 1 U .N .T .S . 7 4 . S e aS h e p h e r d ’s p ir a c y is n o t. See M a j. O p . a t 3

– 1 4 . H o w e v e r , I r e s p e c tf

u llyd is s e n t f

r o m th e m a

jo r ity ’s d e c is io n to r e a s s ig n th is ca se t o a di ff

er entdi stri ctj ud ge. “ W e r em and t o a di ff er entj ud ge on l y i n u nu sual ci rc um st ance s or w hen requi re d t o p re se rve the i nt er es t s of j ust i ce . ” U ni ted Stat es v . W o lf Ch ild , 699 F . 3d 1082, 1102 ( 9th C i r . 2012) ( c i t i ng U ni ted Stat es v. Q ua ch , 3 0 2 F . 3 d 1 0 9 6 , 1 1 0 3 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 )). S p eci fi cal l y, w e em p l o y a th ree-factor test t o d et erm i ne w hether t o rem and a cas e t o a di ff er entdi stri ctj ud ge: (1) w hether the ori gi nal j ud ge w ou l d rea sonabl y be e xp ec t ed u p o n r e m a n d to h a v e s u b s ta n tia l d if f ic u ltyin p u ttin g o u t o f

h is or her m i nd previ ou sl y e xp re ss ed vi ew s or f i nd i ng s det erm i ned 

# FI LED FEB 25 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSSee , e . g. , U ni te d State s v . W

orki ng , 287 F . 3d 801, 809–10 ( 9th C i r . 2002) 1 ( r e a s s ig n in g to d if

f e r e n t d is tr ic t ju d g e w h e r e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c e d d e f e n d a n t to o n e d ay i n j ai l fo l l o w i n g co n v i ct i o n fo r assau l tw i th th e i n t en tt o co m m i tfi rst d e g r e e m u r d e r ) ; Q ua ch , 30 2 F . 3d at11 03 –0 4 (re as si gn i ng w here di stri ctcourt p r e v io u s lys u g g e s te d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s “f

o rtu n a te ” n o t to r e c e iv e th e d e a th penal ty, and w here the courti nd i ca t ed thathad the go vernm entm ov ed for a d o w n w a r d d e p a rtu r e , it w o u ld h a v e d e n ie d th e m o tio n ) ; U ni ted N at . Ins. C o. v. R & D L atex C or

p. , 14 1 F . 3d 91 6, 91 9– 20 (r ea ss i gn i ng w here di stri ctj ud ge had “tw ic e g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t” to ap a rtyw ith o u t a rtic u la tin g a n y r e a s o n s ) ; c f. W y le rSu m m it P a r tn e rs h ip , 235 F . 3d a t1196 ( r e f us i ng t o r e m a nd t o adi f f e r e nt 2 t o be e rr one ous orba s e d on e vi de nc e tha tm us tbe r e j e c t e d, ( 2) w he the rr e a s s i gnm e nti s a dvi s abl e t o pr e s e rve the appe a r a nc e of j us t i c e , a nd ( 3) w he the rr e a s s i gnm e ntw oul d e nt a i l w a s t e a nd dupl i c a t i on outof

pr oport i on t o a ny ga i n i n pr e s e rvi ng the ap p earan ce o f fai rn ess. I d. ; se e al so W ylerSu m m i t

P ’s hi p v. T urner B road . Sys. , Inc. , 235 F . 3d 1184, 1196 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . A pp l yi ng these fa ct ors, I s ee no basi s f or re as si gn i ng thi s c as e. O ur panel opi ni on i s w e l l - art i c ul a t e d, s uc c i nc t , a nd abs ol ut e l y c l e a ra s t o w ha ti s r e qui r e d of the di s tr i c tj udge on r e m a nd. I m port a nt l y , i tl e a ve s no r oom f ora ny di s tr i c tj udge to “h a v e s u b s ta n tia l d if

f ic u lty. . . p u ttin g o u t o f h is o rh e rm in d p r e v io u s ly expres se d v i ew s. ” W

o lf Ch ild , 6 9 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 2 . T h e S e aS h e p h e r d s a r e p ir a te s . P e r i od. N o di s tr i c tj udge c oul d f a i l t o gr a s p the c l a r i ty a nd f i rm ne s s of

our opi ni on. M o r e o v e r , th e “ap p e a r a n c e o f ju s tic e ” d o e s n o t r e q u ir e r e a s s ig n m e n t. W e h a v e p r e v io u s ly r e s e rv e d r e a s s ig n m e n t f o ro n lyth e m o s t e g r e g io u s c a s e s . W h ile 1d is tr ic t ju d g e e v e n th o u g h d is tr ic t ju d g e “a d o p te d v e rb a tim ” o n e p a rty ’s c le a r ly

b ia s e d p r o p o s e d o r d e r ) ; U ni te d State s v . W

akni ne , 54 3 F . 3d 54 6, 56 0 (9th C i r. 2008) ( r e f

us i ng t o r e a s s i gn t o adi f f e r e ntdi s tr i c tj udge de s pi t e c om m i s s i on of s ig n if ic a n t p r o c e d u r a l e rr o r s ) . 3 th e d is tr ic t ju d g e c le ar ly e rr e d in f in d in g f o rth e S e aS h e p h e r d s , th e r e is ab s o lu te ly no evi dence i n thi s r ec ord t o sug gestthathe di d so for an i m prop erpu rpose, such a s b ia s o rp r e

ju d ic e . F i n al l y, b ecau se I d o n o tb el i ev e “ p reserv i n g th e ap p earan ce o f fai rn ess” r e qui r e s r e a s s i gnm e nt , the m a j or i ty ’ s de c i s i on w i l l ne c e s s a r i l y “ e nt a i l w a s t e a nd d u p lic a tio n o u t o f

p r o p o rtio n ” to a n y b e n e f its . W o lf Ch ild , 6 9 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 2 . D i stri ctj ud ges, l i ke ci rc ui tj ud ges, occa si on al l y m ake m i st akes . W here , as here , the r e i s no r e a s on t o s us pe c ttha tthe di s tr i c tj udge w i l l r e pe a tthos e m i s t a ke s on r e m a n d , r e a s s ig n m e n t is in ap p r o p r ia te . I r e s pe c t f ul l y di s s e ntf

r om the m a

j or i ty ’ s de c i s i on t o r e a s s i gn thi s c a s e t o a di ff er entdi stri ctj ud ge.