United States v. Reza Hossnieh

MEMORANDUM

Reza Hossnieh appeals his conviction for. threatening a federal officer to interfere with his duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115 . We affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a continuance to allow Hossnieh to provide the prosecution sufficient notice of intent to rely on a psychiatric defense. Even if Hossnieh had provided adequate notice, the district court indicated that it likely would have excluded the psychiatric report because there was “no nexus shown” between the report and any trial issue. Thus, any prejudice Hossnieh suffered from the denial of a continuance was insufficient to warrant reversal. See United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir.) (considering prejudice) amended by 764 F.2d 675 (9th Cir.1985).

The proffered opinion of Dr. Sokolov that, as a result of bipolar disorder, Hoss-nieh was acting impulsively when he threatened Detective Howisey, and that Hossnieh may have suffered from delusions and grandiose thinking, does not suggest that Hossnieh was incapable of forming intentions or acting to carry out those intentions. Exclusion of the report for lack of a nexus would not have been manifestly…