Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert S.N. HEE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-14
Citations: 681 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 16-10018
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert S.N. HEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 681
Pages: 650–650

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert S.N. HEE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10018
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted February 24, 2017 Honolulu, Hawaii
Filed March 14, 2017
Lawrence Tong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Albert S.N. Hee, Pro Se
Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. A criminal defendant can suppress evidence from a civil tax audit if he shows "clear and convincing" evidence of an "affirmative misrepresentation" by the IRS. United States v. Bridges, 344 F.3d 1010, 1020 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977)). Because Hee presented no such evidence, the district court did not err in denying his motions.
2. The government violates Brady when it suppresses evidence favorable to the defense, resulting in prejudice. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). The suppression must be "so serious that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different" outcome. Id. at 281, 119 S.Ct. 1936. Because evidence of guilt was overwhelming, there's no reasonable probability that the allegedly suppressed evidence would have changed the outcome of Hee's March 2015 motion, August 2015'motion or trial.
3.Because Hee failed to properly object below, we review the district court's decisions concerning the admissibility of testimony for plain error. See United States v. Lopez, 762 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2014). Under this standard, Hee must show that any error was not "subject to reasonable dispute." Id, at 863 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). But it's a matter of reasonable dispute whether questions concerning "the understanding" of Hee's family members were intended to elicit hearsay rather than evidence of Hee's contemporaneous good faith. Nor did the exclusion of this line of questioning affect the outcome of the proceeding. Hee's defense, which lasted five days and included seventeen witnesses, amply aired the available evidence of his alleged good faith.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.