From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Mannino

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 12, 2017
No. 16-30149 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2017)

Opinion

No. 16-30149

12-12-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUY CHRISTOPHER MANNINO, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00026-RRB-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2017 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

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). --------

Guy Christopher Mannino appeals his jury conviction for three counts of solicitation of murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Sufficient evidence supports Mannino's convictions. United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2002). The evidence allowed reasonable jurors to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mannino had the requisite intent to solicit the murders. Julius Chambers testified that Mannino asked him to commit the murders, provided him with information about the victims, suggested ways to commit the murders, offered him access to weapons and explosives with which to commit the murders, a place to stay, and aid in escaping. The government presented audio recordings in which Mannino discussed the murder plots with Chambers. And the trial court submitted notes and diagrams detailing Mannino's murder plots—either written by Chambers at the direction of Mannino or written by Mannino himself.

2. There was no error in failing to provide a renunciation defense instruction sua sponte. Mannino did not request such an instruction nor did he rely on the defense in his theory of the case. United States v. Montgomery, 150 F.3d 983, 996 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, there was no duty to give the instruction.

3. The alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Mannino's guilt. United States v. Alcantara-Castillo, 788 F.3d 1186, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Mannino

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 12, 2017
No. 16-30149 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2017)
Case details for

United States v. Mannino

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUY CHRISTOPHER MANNINO…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 12, 2017

Citations

No. 16-30149 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2017)

Citing Cases

United States v. Mannino

Docket 109. Docket 138 (CA9 Memorandum); Docket 139 (CA9 Mandate); see also United States v. Mannino, 706…

Mannino v. Edge

Mannino appealed his jury conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which-on…