United States v. Pooley

• Docket Number: 2:22-CV-83 JCM (VCF)
• Decision Date: 10 June 2022
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES VASCO KROHN POOLEY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES VASCO KROHN POOLEY, Defendants.

No. 2:22-CV-83 JCM (VCF)

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 10, 2022

AMENDED ORDER

Presently before the court is appellant James Pooley's (“Pooley”) appeal of magistrate judge Cam Ferenbach's judgment of conviction against him. (ECF No 1). Pooley filed an opening brief (ECF Nos. 7; 8), to which appellee the United States of America (“the government”) responded (ECF No. 12) and Pooley replied (ECF No. 14).

Also before the court is the government's motion to strike portions of Pooley's appendix (ECF No. 8). (ECF No. 11). Pooley did not respond, and the time to do so has passed.^[1]

I. Background

In January of 2021, the government filed a two-count criminal complaint charging Pooley with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) and operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of .08 grams and higher in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.14(b). United States v. James Pooley, Case No 2:21-mj-00079-VCF, ECF No. 1 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2021).

On August 2, 2021, Judge Ferenbach held a bench trial on Pooley's charges. Id. at ECF No. 18. At trial the government presented testimony from several park rangers involved in Pooley's arrest. The rangers testified that Pooley failed to drive within his lane, had bloodshot and glassy eyes and strong odor of alcohol on his breath, had open alcohol containers in his vehicle, and admitted to drinking alcohol earlier that day. Further, ever Pooley's objection, judge Ferenbach admitted breathalyzer test results showing blood alcohol contents (“BAC”) of .244 and .255.

During cross examination, Pooley's counsel elicited admissions from the rangers that they made several mistakes in their reports including erroneous time stamps, misspellings, and missing case numbers, among other things.

Based on the totality of the evidence, judge Ferenbach found Pooley guilty of both counts and sentenced him to six months' probation and a $2, 500 fine. Id. at ECF No. 26. Pooley now appeals his conviction. Id. at ECF No. 31.

II. Legal Standard

Magistrate judges have jurisdiction to try persons accused of, and sentence persons convicted of, misdemeanors. 28 U.S.C. §§ 636, 3401; FED. R. CRIM. P. 58. “In all cases of conviction by a United States magistrate judge an appeal of right shall lie from the judgment of the magistrate judge to a judge of the district court of the district in which the offense was committed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3402. The district court's review of the magistrate's judgment is governed by the same standards as an appeal from a judgment of a district court to the court of appeals. FED. R. CRIM. P. 58(g)(2)(D); United States v. Fautanu, 751 F.Supp. 1420, 1421 (D. Haw. 1990).

Following a bench trial, the appellate court reviews the findings of fact for clear error, and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 2011). When there are multiple trial errors, the cumulative effect of these multiple trial errors may prejudice a defendant to warrant reversal. United States v. Frederick, 78 F.3d 1370, 1381 (9th Cir. 1996).

“Under [the [clear error] standard, [the appellate court] may not reverse just because [it] ‘would have decided the matter differently. A finding that is ‘plausible' in light of the full record-even if another is equally or more so-must govern.' ” Cooper v. Harris, 137 S.Ct. 1455, 1465 (2017) (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, N.C. , 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)) (internal citation omitted).

III. Discussion

Pooley appeals his conviction on three grounds: 1) no reasonable juror could convict him based on the evidence presented at trial, 2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the breathalyzer test results, and 3) cumulative errors likely prejudiced him. Having reviewed the record, the court DENIES Pooley's appeal and AFFIRMS his conviction.

First, there is no clear error in the trier of fact's finding that Pooley is guilty of his charges. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable juror could determine that, under the totality of the evidence, Pooley was in fact operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content (“BAC”) of .08 grams or higher.^[2]

Next, there is no abuse of discretion in the magistrate judge's admitting the breathalyzer test results. The breathalyzer operator witnessed the results of Pooley's two tests firsthand and testified that the results were the same as the government's exhibit showing that Pooley's BAC was above the legal limit. Therefore, the court properly admitted the breathalyzer test results into evidence.

Finally there is no cumulative error justifying reversal of Pooley's conviction. The government's case is not so weak that Pooley is likely to be prejudiced by the rangers' apparent technical errors.^[3] The government presented evidence in the form of both testimony and reports, and the trier of fact found that evidence to be...