United States v. Hernandez, 18-10502

• Decision Date: 23 September 2019
• Docket Number: No. 18-10502,18-10502
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10502

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Submitted September 18, 2019^**

September 23, 2019

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00511-JMS-1

MEMORANDUM^*

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii

J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Ernesto Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his motion for judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez claims that the district court erred by declining to take judicial

Page 2

notice of Hernandez's allegation that the government attorneys who prosecuted his case were not properly appointed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying this request because Hernandez has failed to show that his allegation was relevant to any pending proceeding, and has also failed to show that it was "not subject to reasonable dispute." See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), (d); United States v. Woods, 335 F.3d 993, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review). Furthermore, the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the request for judicial notice.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach the parties' remaining arguments.

AFFIRMED.

*. 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).