Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley Frances BATES, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra Corrinne Bates, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-22
Citations: 221 F. App'x 538
Docket Number: Nos. 06-50062, 06-50073
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley Frances BATES, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra Corrinne Bates, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley Frances BATES, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra Corrinne Bates, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 06-50062, 06-50073.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 6, 2007.
Filed Feb. 22, 2007.
U.S. Attorneys Office, USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Peter Ko, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Holly S. Hanover, Martha McNab Hall, Esq., Dilorio & Hall, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, District Judge.
The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 because 21 U.S.C. § 841, 846 are "federal laws of nationwide applicability that make actions criminal wherever committed." United States v. Begay, 42 F.3d 486, 498 (9th Cir.1994).
2. The district court reasonably disbelieved defendants' explanations about why they pled guilty, United States v. Snider, 976 F.2d 1249, 1251 (9th Cir.1992) ("Questions of credibility are for the district court."), and therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying their motions to withdraw.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for expert funds. United States v. Labansat, 94 F.3d 527, 530 (9th Cir.1996).
AFFIRMGED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.