Raymond

MEMORANDUM **

John Raymond appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of four counts of interstate travel and use of an interstate commerce facility in the commission of murder-for-hire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 .

First, Raymond contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to transfer the case to the District of Arizona. We review the denial of a motion to transfer for abuse of discretion. United States v. Etsitty, 130 F.3d 420, 424 (9th Cir.1997); Fed.R.Crim.P. 18.

In Platt v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., 376 U.S. 240, 243-44 , 84 S.Ct. 769 , 11 L.Ed.2d 674 (1964), the Supreme Court outlined ten specific factors that a court should consider in determining the appropriateness of a transfer pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b). In denying Raymond’s motion to transfer, the district court properly relied on Platt , addressed each of the ten factors, and determined that the case should remain in the Central District of California. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to transfer the case in light of the Platt factors.

Second, Raymond argues that the district court abused its discretion by…