Opinion
No. 18-10502
09-23-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 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.