United States v. Edith Hannelore Dahle

985 F.2d 575 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edith Hannelore DAHLE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-30050. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 1993. Decided Jan. 21, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, No. CR-90-60081-JMB; James M. Burns, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.Or. AFFIRMED. Before D.W. NELSON, TROTT and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Appellant Dahle argues the District Court erred in denying her Motion to Dismiss based on the recantation defense found in 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (d) (1988). Whether Dahle is entitled to the recantation defense is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984). A district court's findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. In re San Vincente Medical Partners,…