United States v. Gregory Walker , 502 F. App'x 658 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-10598
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00772-SC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GREGORY WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Samuel Conti, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 3, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT, RAWLINSON, and CUDAHY,*** Circuit Judges.
Appellant Gregory Walker (Walker) appeals his conviction and sentence.
*
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 Richard D. Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
1. The district court properly admitted the identification of Walker by
Officer Griffin and Sergeant Do under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 701.
Both witnesses had sufficient prior contacts with Walker to render their
identifications helpful to the jury, and the evidence was more probative than
prejudicial. See United States v. Beck, 418 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule
701); see also United States v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638, 651 (9th Cir. 2001), as
amended (Rule 403).
2. There was no Confrontation Clause violation in this case because the
identification testimony was not testimonial, and Walker had a full opportunity to
cross-examine both witnesses. See Fenenbock v. Dir. of Corr., 692 F.3d 910, 919
(9th Cir. 2012), as amended (“[A] court violates the Confrontation Clause only
when it prevents a defendant from examining a particular and relevant topic, such
as bias . . .”) (emphasis added).
3. By applying the cross-referenced attempted murder guideline, the
district court found that Walker acted with the specific intent to kill. Although the
district court could have said more regarding its finding, a court’s resolution of
disputed facts “need not be detailed and lengthy” to comply with Federal Rule of
Page 2 of 3
Criminal Procedure 32. United States v. Ingham, 486 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir.
2007), as amended.
4. The sentence imposed by the district court was both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The district court properly applied the cross-referenced
attempted murder guideline and correctly calculated the Guidelines range. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (discussing
procedural reasonableness). The resulting within-Guidelines sentence, was
substantively reasonable. See United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1116
(9th Cir. 2010) (noting that a within-Guidelines sentence is generally reasonable in
the “mine run of cases”).
AFFIRMED.
Page 3 of 3