Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-07
Citations: 461 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 10-10291
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMAS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and PRO, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 461
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10291.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 28, 2011.
Filed Dec. 7, 2011.
Phillip A. Talbert, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Heiko P. Coppola, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bruce Locke, Moss & Locke, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: THOMAS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and PRO, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Philip M. Pro, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Nevada, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The parties agree this matter should be remanded to the Eastern District of California for consideration of a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence prior to this Court resolving the issues in this appeal. The parties dispute only whether the Court should reassign this matter on remand. The Court denies the request to reassign, as there is no evidence of personal bias and no unusual circumstances exist to support reassignment. McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 423 F.3d 1015, 1023 (9th Cir.2005); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 402 (9th Cir.1998). All issues raised in Appellant's Opening Brief in this appeal are preserved for later appeal in the event the district court denies the motion for new trial.
REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.