United States v. Jason Wiley

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10311

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-456-LDG-VCF

v.

MEMORANDUM*

JASON WILEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2013** San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Wiley was convicted of nine counts of interference with commerce by

robbery and one count of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, in

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concluded this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and ten counts of use of a firearm during a crime of

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Wiley now appeals his convictions.

We review whether the challenged convictions…

MEMORANDUM **

Wiley was convicted of nine counts of interference with commerce by robbery and one count of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 , and ten counts of use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). Wiley now appeals his convictions. We review whether the challenged convictions were based on insufficient evidence by asking whether, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). We review the exclusion of expert testimony by the district court for abuse of discretion. United States v. Rincon, 28 F.3d 921, 923 (9th Cir.1994). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

Wiley argues that six of the robberies he conducted did not interfere with interstate commerce. The vast majority of the alcoholic beverages sold by five of the businesses Wiley robbed was manufactured outside the state of Nevada. The other challenged business, a hotel, served out-of-state guests. The…

concurring:

I agree with the memorandum disposition, except that I would not hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony concerning eyewitness identification. Instead, I would simply hold that Wiley suffered no prejudice from that exclusion, for the reasons stated in the memorandum disposition.