United States v. Jose Cabada

MEMORANDUM

Jose Arias, Jesus Barraza, Jose Cabada, and Victor Martinez (“Appellants”) appeal their jury convictions for narcotics-related offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to recuse or reassign the trial judge, who previously issued wiretap orders in their case. See United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir.1997). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. There are no facts indicating the trial judge’s bias. See United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 739-40 (9th Cir.1978).

We review de novo Appellants’ argument that the Eastern District of California’s policy of assigning criminal cases to the judge who was randomly assigned to authorize the underlying wiretaps violates their Fifth Amendment due process right. See In re Marshall, 721 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir.2013). We conclude that the Eastern District’s policy does not violate due process. Appellants did not offer any facts suggesting that the government’s advance knowledge of the judge’s identity would influence against whom and…