Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guido BRAVATTI and Anthony Eppolito, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-28
Citations: 324 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: Nos. 08-10294, 08-10295
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guido BRAVATTI and Anthony Eppolito, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: BEA and HUG, Circuit Judges, and EDMUNDS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 620–620

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guido BRAVATTI and Anthony Eppolito, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 08-10294, 08-10295.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 09, 2009.
Filed April 28, 2009.
Eric Johnson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Timothy S. Vasquez, Esquire, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shari Kaufman, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Franny Forsman, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: BEA and HUG, Circuit Judges, and EDMUNDS, District Judge.
The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court did not err either in denying appellants' motions to dismiss them indictments on double jeopardy grounds or in denying their requests for an evidentiary hearing. The government opposed the grant of a mistrial and there is nothing to suggest the government's case was going badly or that the government had reason to think it would fare better on retrial. See United States v. Lun, 944 F.2d 642, 644 (9th Cir.1991). Having presided over the entire proceeding, the district court was uniquely situated to evaluate the prosecutor's conduct and nothing calls into question the prosecutor's explanation for the events at trial. See United States v. Hagege, 437 F.3d 943, 951 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.