Opinion
No. 20-30081
05-17-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLAN ROY GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. Nos. 9:19-cr-00043-DWM-1 9:19-cr-00043-DWM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 5, 2021 Seattle, Washington Before: CHRISTEN and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SILVER, District Judge.
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).
The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. --------
In 2020, Defendant Allan Roy Goodman was convicted of five drug offenses, one firearm offense, and one count of obstructing justice. Defendant appeals the district court's rejection of his proposed jury instruction, allowance of leading questions, and denial of a continuance of trial. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those necessary to decide the appeal.
Defendant's proposed jury instruction regarding the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime charge was synonymous with the district court's given instruction. See United States v. Krouse, 370 F.3d 965, 967-68 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, the given instruction adequately encompassed his defense theory and there is no basis for relief. See United States v. Whittemore, 776 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015).
Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) "vests broad discretion in trial courts" to permit leading questions on direct examination, and reversal is proper "only if the judge's action . . . amounted to, or contributed to, the denial of a fair trial." Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 885 F.2d 498, 514 (9th Cir. 1989), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc (Sept. 19, 1989) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Because the witness, a stroke victim, repeatedly displayed emotion and reluctance to testify, and the leading questions were limited in scope, permitting those questions was within the district court's discretion.
Defendant appeals the district court's denial of a continuance of trial. Defendant failed to show prejudice, which is required to find error. United States v. Kloehn, 620 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.