United States v. James B.A. Niven

19 F.3d 31 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. James B.A. NIVEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-50526. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 5, 1994. Decided Feb. 25, 1994. 1 Before: GOODWIN and HALL, Circuit Judges; TANNER * , Senior District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 James B.A. Niven raises five issues in this appeal: 1) he was denied counsel of his choice at the resentencing; 2) the district court failed to follow this court's directive on remand with regard to time imposed; 3) the district court failed to follow this court's directive on remand with respect to restitution; 4) he was tried in violation of the Speedy Trial Act; and 5) his due process rights were violated by the trial court's badgering of defense witnesses, curtailing cross-examination of government witnesses, and pressuring the jury to reach a verdict. A. Counsel at Resentencing 4 This court reviews the district…