United States v. Ceasar Cogger , 609 F. App'x 487 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-30144
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-05494-KLS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CEASAR A. COGGER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Karen L. Strombom, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 7, 2015**
Seattle, Washington
Before: NGUYEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and CARNEY,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California, sitting by designation.
Ceasar Cogger appeals the district court’s order affirming his conviction for
three counts of simple assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
1. Cogger claims that the trial court erred in permitting Gustavo Gurrola to
invoke a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Cogger’s
claim is belied by the record. Because Cogger did not object below, we review for
plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez Becerra, 784 F.3d 514, 518 (9th Cir.
2015). Here, the trial court did not permit a blanket assertion of the privilege.
Rather, the court adopted a question-by-question approach. And, in evaluating
“the questions, their setting, and the peculiarities of the case,” the court could
determine that Gurrola’s answers could subject him to “a real and appreciable
danger of incrimination” as a member of the armed forces with a duty to report
certain misconduct. United States v. Drollinger, 80 F.3d 389, 392 (9th Cir. 1996)
(quoting United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 1980)). Thus, the
court did not err in assessing Gurrola’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment
privilege.
2. Cogger also challenges the trial court’s failure to order sua sponte the
government to grant Gurrola immunity in exchange for his testimony at trial.
Cogger, however, has not shown that the requirements for compelling immunity
were satisfied. See United States v. Straub, 538 F.3d 1147, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.