Lewis

MEMORANDUM

In United States v. Lewis, 518 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir.2008) (“Lewis II”), we reversed and remanded to the district court the question of whether the original indictment against Lewis should have been dismissed without prejudice. We directed the district court to consider all periods of pretrial delay leading up to Lewis’s first trial to determine whether there was a Speedy Trial Act (STA), 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (a)(2), violation that required dismissal of the indictment with prejudice, which would have precluded Lewis’s second trial and this appeal. We did so principally because we determined that the district court misconstrued our remand order in Lewis’s appeal from his first trial, United States v. Lewis, 349 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.2003) (“Lewis I”). We expressly retained jurisdiction over Lewis’s non-STA claims of error and address them now.

1. The district court did not err in instructing the jury on the law of entrapment. Lewis argues that the last sentence of the instruction, instructing the jury that it “may find that there was entrapment as to some of the acts but no entrapment as to other of the acts” with which he was charged was in error. That error, Lewis speculates,…