United States v. Sam Oudomrak

26 F.3d 134 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Sam OUDOMRAK, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50275. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 4, 1994. * Decided May 24, 1994. 1 Before: BROWNING and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, District Judge. ** 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 * Oudomrak fails to make even the threshold showing necessary to obtain a severance on the ground a codefendant would offer exculpatory testimony if tried separately. See United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 892 (9th Cir.1993). Manilay conditioned his testimony not only on a separate trial but also on receiving a particular plea bargain, and the parties acknowledged it was uncertain whether Manilay would testify if a severance were granted. 1 Even if Manilay were to testify Oudomrak was not responsible, the testimony would not have been "substantially exculpatory," see id., since the government possessed evidence of…