Court Opinion

ID: 4279190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-29 20:00:33.027289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:31.239599
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 29 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-10194

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                2:15-cr-00133-LRH-PAL-1
 v.

JOSHUA STEPHEN DOTY,                            MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                    Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 16, 2018**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, N.R. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Defendant-Appellant Joshua Doty appeals from his conviction under 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), arguing that his previous state court conviction for battery

constituting domestic violence under Nevada law does not qualify as a predicate

offense under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Doty’s entire argument on appeal is premised on the proposition that he was

convicted under section 33.018 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which is in a civil

portion of that code. We disagree. Both Nevada statutes and Nevada case law

make clear that section 200.485 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which is in a

criminal portion of that code and which is titled “Battery which constitutes

domestic violence,” is the statute under which Doty was previously convicted.

See, e.g., English v. State, 9 P.3d 60, 64 (Nev. 2000) (“The definition and penalties

for battery constituting domestic violence is [sic] codified at [Nevada Revised

Statute §] 200.485 which took effect on January 1, 1998.”).

      Doty has waived any argument as to whether section 200.485 is a categorical

match to the federal definition of misdemeanor domestic violence contained in

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A). See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency,

261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[I]ssues which are not specifically and

distinctly argued and raised in a party’s opening brief are waived.”). We therefore

do not reach that issue.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2