Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding.
William C. Brown, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher J. Schatz, Esq., FPDOR-Federal Public Defender's Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before D.W. NELSON, KOZINSKI and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Assuming that the use of physical restraints at Zaragoza's sentencing hearing and during his allocution was error, such error was harmless. Williams v. Woodford, 306 F.3d 665, 689 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Mack, 200 F.3d 653, 657 (9th Cir.2000).
Nor was Zaragoza denied equal protection. The use of restraints was "intimately related to the State's legitimate interest in maintaining custody during the proceeding[ ] and thus did not offend the Equal Protection Clause by arbitrarily discriminating against those unable to post bail or to whom bail had been denied." Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986).
AFFIRMED.