Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guy Christopher MANNINO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-12
Citations: 706 F. App'x 355
Docket Number: No. 16-30149
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guy Christopher MANNINO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guy Christopher MANNINO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30149
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 8, 2017 Seattle, Washington
Filed December 12, 2017
Joseph William Bottini, I, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jo Ann Farrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Carlton Gunn, Esquire, Attorney, Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for'Defendant-Appellant
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, 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
Guy Christopher Mannino appeals his jury conviction for three counts of solicitation of murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. Sufficient evidence supports Manni-no's convictions. United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2002). The evidence allowed reasonable jurors to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mannino had the requisite intent to solicit the murders. Julius Chambers testified that Mannino asked him to commit the murders, provided him with information about the victims, suggested ways to commit the murders, offered him access to weapons and explosives with which to commit the murders, a place to stay, and aid in escaping. The government presented audio recordings in which Mannino discussed the murder plots with Chambers. And the trial court submitted notes and diagrams detailing Mannino's murder plots—either written by Chambers at the direction of Man-nino or written by Mannino himself.
2. There was no error in failing to provide a renunciation defense instruction sua sponte. Mannino did not request such an instruction nor did he rely on the defense in his theory of the case. United States v. Montgomery, 150 F.3d 983, 996 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, there was no duty to give the instruction.
3.The alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Mannino's guilt. United States v. Alcantara-Castillo, 788 F.3d 1186, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.