Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Franklin BEALS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-22
Citations: 616 F. App'x 334
Docket Number: No. 12-10463
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Franklin BEALS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CALLAHAN, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 334–335

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Franklin BEALS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10463.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 15, 2015.
Filed Sept. 22, 2015.
William S. Wong, Assistant U.S., US-SAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Miller Holley, Esquire, Robert M. Holley, Sacramento, CA, Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CALLAHAN, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Kenneth Beals appeals his conviction (via guilty plea) on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.'S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.
The district court did not err in denying Beals's motion to dismiss the indictment for outrageous government conduct. Beals has not shown that the challenged governmental conduct was a due process violation "so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice." United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir.2011). Nor has Beals shown that the district court abused its discretion in declining to dismiss the indictment under its supervisory authority. See United States v. Barrera-Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089, 1091-92 (9th Cir.1991).
Likewise, Beals has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620-21 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.