Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharron CRABB, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-20
Citations: 689 F. App'x 498
Docket Number: No. 16-10194
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharron CRABB, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 498–499

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharron CRABB, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10194
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 20, 2017
Nancy M. Olson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE— Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee
■ Randall John Roske, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Randall J Roske, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sharron Crabb appeals from the district court's judgment revoking probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Crabb contends that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose a publicly available 2009 study regarding the possibility of false positive tests among persistent marijuana users. Because Crabb did not raise this claim in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Guzman-Padilla, 573 F.3d 865, 890 (9th Cir. 2009).
Assuming without deciding that Brady applies in probation revocation proceedings, Crabb cannot establish plain error. The record reflects that Crabb accessed the study at issue on a public website. Therefore, she cannot show any suppression by the government. See United States v. Aichele, 941 F.2d 761, 764 (9th Cir. 1991). Even if Crabb could show that the report was suppressed, she has not shown that there was a reasonable probability of a different result if the report had been produced. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). The record reflects that the district judge considered Crabb's arguments about the possible effect of her previous heavy marijuana use on her test results, and was persuaded that the report submitted by the government established Crabb's reuse of marijuana in violation of her conditions of probation.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.