United States v. George Waw
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George WAW, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Barry G. Silverman (author), Richard C. Tallman, Richard R. Clifton
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50081 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03138-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM * GEORGE WAW, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 4, 2011 Pasadena, California Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
George Waw appeals the district court’s order denying his request to vacate his conviction on selective prosecution grounds. We affirm.
After weighing the evidence put forth by Waw and the government, the district court concluded that Waw had not established selective prosecution, and, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. further, that even if he had, vacating Waw’s conviction was not an appropriate remedy. We agree.
As to the latter basis, while United States v. Redondo-Lemos did not foreclose vacating a conviction as a possible remedy for selective prosecution, the court “caution[ed] . . . against broader . . . remedies.” 955 F.2d 1296, 1302-03 (9th Cir. 1992). Waw alleged prejudice only with respect to the plea deal he was offered and the consequent amount of time he would serve. His guilt and the decision to prosecute him were not at issue. We cannot fault the district court’s conclusion that vacating the conviction would not have been appropriate even if Waw’s selective prosecution claim had merit. See United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073, 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A court may dismiss an indictment under its supervisory powers only when the defendant suffers substantial prejudice, and where no lesser remedial action is available.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.