United States v. Max Maurice Majeno

990 F.2d 1263 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Max Maurice MAJENO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-50420. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 7, 1993. * Decided April 14, 1993. Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Max Maurice Majeno appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). Majeno contends that the district court erred by refusing to give the jury his proposed instruction concerning eyewitness identification. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 3 We have not resolved the "question whether a district court's denial of a proposed jury instruction is reviewed for errors of law, sometimes characterized as 'de novo,' or for an abuse of discretion." United States v. Streit, 962 F.2d 894, 897 (9th Cir.1992). We need not resolve this issue here because the result would be…