United States v. St. Peter
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
John D. St. Peter appeals his bench trial conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23 (a)(1), operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.10 grams or more of alcohol in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23 (a)(2), and open container in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.14 (b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
St. Peter contends that the district court erroneously allowed the government to reopen its case to establish evidence of the court’s jurisdiction. We review a district court’s decision to reopen a case for abuse of discretion. United States v. Sisack, 527 F.2d 917, 919 (9th Cir.1975). Sisack highlights three factors to be taken into consideration when reviewing the district court’s decision to reopen: (1) the possibility of undue emphasis to the additional testimony; (2) the basis for the untimely request; and (3) the materiality of the additional testimony. Id. at 919-20 (citing Eason v. United States, 281 F.2d 818, 822 (9th Cir. 1960)). Applying these factors here, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion.