616 Fed.Appx. 334 (9th Cir. 2015), 12-10463, United States v. Beals

Docket Nº:12-10463
Citation:616 Fed.Appx. 334
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH FRANKLIN BEALS, Defendant - Appellant
Attorney:For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: William S. Wong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA. For KENNETH FRANKLIN BEALS, Defendant - Appellant: Robert Miller Holley, Esquire, Robert M. Holley, Sacramento, CA.
Judge Panel:Before: CALLAHAN, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:September 22, 2015
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 334

616 Fed.Appx. 334 (9th Cir. 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH FRANKLIN BEALS, Defendant - Appellant

No. 12-10463

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

September 22, 2015

Submitted [**], San Francisco, California September 15, 2015.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00485-KJM-1.

AFFIRMED.

For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: William S. Wong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA.

For KENNETH FRANKLIN BEALS, Defendant - Appellant: Robert Miller Holley, Esquire, Robert M. Holley, Sacramento, CA.

Before: CALLAHAN, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Page 335

MEMORANDUM[*]

Kenneth Beals appeals his conviction (via guilty plea) on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.

The district court did not err in denying Beals's motion to dismiss the indictment for outrageous government conduct. Beals has not shown that the challenged governmental conduct was a due process violation " so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice." United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir. 2011). Nor has Beals shown that the district court abused its discretion in declining to dismiss the indictment under its supervisory authority. See

United States v. Barrera-Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 1991).

Likewise...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP