Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven BITNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-04
Citations: 369 F. App'x 820
Docket Number: No. 09-30170
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven BITNER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 820–821

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven BITNER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30170.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 2010.
Filed March 4, 2010.
Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, 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
Defendant-Appellant Steven Bitner appeals the denial of his Motion for Change of Venue filed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b) ("Rule 21 motion"). Bitner was indicted in the District of Montana and charged with advertisement of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. Bitner, a resident of Oregon, filed the Rule 21 motion re questing the matter be transferred to the District of Oregon. After the district court denied that motion, he entered into a conditional plea agreement which allowed him to appeal the denial of the motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bitner's Rule 21 motion. It properly identified and applied the factors listed in Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 376 U.S. 240, 243-44, 84 S.Ct. 769, 11 L.Ed.2d 674 (1964), to determine whether Bitner's case should have been transferred. It is not our function to reweigh the factors once we are satisfied that the district court applied the appropriate criteria. Id. at 244-45, 84 S.Ct. 769.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.