United States v. Samuel Rezene

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-30174
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00185-JLR
v.
SAMUEL N. REZENE, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Samuel N. Rezene appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rezene argues that the district court erred by granting the government’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
motion to preclude him from presenting a justification defense. Reviewing de
novo, see United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1991), we agree
with the district court that, construing the facts in Rezene’s favor, Rezene did not
make a prima facie showing that he had no reasonable legal alternative to
possessing a firearm. See United States v. Perdomo-Espana, 522 F.3d 983, 988
(9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth elements of justification defense). Specifically,
Rezene did not show that seeking the aid of law enforcement was an unreasonable
alternative to gun possession. See United States v. Wofford, 122 F.3d 787, 791 (9th
Cir. 1997) (“Our cases uniformly require the defendant to seek aid from law
enforcement before taking matters into his own hands.”). Rezene argues that his
contacts with law enforcement regarding the violent acts against him show that he
did seek law enforcement help or, alternatively, that doing so would have been
futile. However, the record reflects that rather than seeking the aid of law
enforcement to find the perpetrators, Rezene repeatedly withheld relevant
information from investigators regarding the perpetrators’ identity and motivation.
Moreover, Rezene did not report to law enforcement all of the violent acts against
him. On this record, the district court did not err by precluding Rezene from
asserting a justification defense. See Schoon, 971 F.2d at 195.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-30174