United States v. Brent Williams

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 16-10375
16-10423
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01492-ROS
v.
BRENT F. WILLIAMS; GUY ANDREW MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAMS,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jack Zouhary, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted January 16, 2018***
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Brent F. Williams and Guy Andrew Williams
appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motions under Federal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1) seeking new trials on their criminal charges
for conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and transactional money laundering.
Appellants raise several claims premised on the assumption that the
Department of Justice lacked authority to bring charges against them absent a pre-
indictment enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”). Contrary to appellants’ contentions, neither the SEC “nor its staff has the
authority or responsibility for instituting, conducting, settling, or otherwise
disposing of criminal proceedings. That authority and responsibility are vested in
the Attorney General and representatives of the Department of Justice.” 17 C.F.R.
§ 202.5(f). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting
appellants’ subject matter jurisdiction, Brady, and prosecutorial authority claims.
See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1259 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
Nor did the district court err by rejecting appellant’s remaining contentions
that the prosecutors lacked authority. The United States Attorneys’ Manual, on
which appellants rely, “is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to
create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any
matter civil or criminal.” United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir.
1993) (internal quotations omitted). And, in any event, appellants have not shown
that the prosecution of their criminal charges was contrary to any protocols.
2 16-10375 & 16-10423
We do not consider appellants’ remaining arguments, which they failed to
raise in their direct appeals and were not a basis for their motions for new trials. See
United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714, 721 (9th Cir. 2001) (declining to consider
issue raised for the first time on appeal); United States v. Nagra, 147 F.3d 875, 882
(9th Cir. 1998) (declining to consider claims that have could have been raised in an
earlier appeal but were not).
The motion for immediate release pending appeal is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-10375 & 16-10423