United States v. Henry Villa

MEMORANDUM

Henry Villa attacks his conviction on three principal grounds, and also mounts an attack on his sentence. We conclude that each of his contentions lacks merit and, therefore, affirm his conviction and sentence.

1. Villa contends that the district court erred in quashing his subpoena to the City of Merced, California, pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 17(c), in which he sought the production of documents relating to a number of individuals involved in his case. We have previously noted that “Rule 17(c) was not intended as a discovery device, or to ‘allow a blind fishing expedition seeking unknown evidence.’ ” United States v. Reed, 726 F.2d 570, 577 (9th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. MacKey, 647 F.2d 898, 901 (9th Cir.1981)). Under Rule 17(c), the party seeking documents must “clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 700 , 94 S.Ct. 3090 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974).

In this case, both the district court and the magistrate judge found that the subpoena, as drafted, was insufficiently specific, leaving open the possibility, which the defendant did not pursue, that a narrowed subpoena might be acceptable.…