In the instant case, Defendant "challenge[d] the sufficiency of the evidence" on appeal. United States v. Pedregon, 520 F. App'x 605, 608 (9th Cir. 2013). The Ninth Circuit addressed this claim.
Hence, the language quoted above was not a holding of the court. See, e.g.,United States v. Pedregon, 520 Fed.Appx. 605, 608 (9th Cir.2013) (“We are not bound by dicta—discussions that are ‘unnecessary to the Court's holdings,’—in decisions from our court or any other court.” (quotation omitted)). At least one decision in this District has applied both Councilman and Konop, implicitly finding no conflict between the decisions.