United States v. Urena
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20720
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Urena was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a prison contraband knife.
- The April 11, 2006 incident involved Dennis, Urena, and Atwater with a shank recovered from under Urena’s shoulder.
- Urena claimed Atwater used the shank and that he possessed it to avoid snitching.
- Urena argued self-defense and that Dennis could have had a weapon; the district court initially allowed self-defense in opening but refused a jury instruction.
- Dr. David testified about Dennis’s injuries; the court limited cross-examination on causation and denied designating Dr. David as an expert; sentencing used pre-amendment guidelines including recency points.
- Amendment 742 to the guidelines, not retroactive, did not warrant resentencing; Urena’s sentence was within a properly calculated range under the law at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-defense instruction warranted? | Urena argued sufficient facts support self-defense. | Government contends no prima facie basis for immediate threat. | No abuse; no imminent threat or proportionate force established. |
| Confrontation Clause: causation cross-examination? | Urena contends he should cross-examine for causation of injuries. | Court limited causation to non-expert testimony as to injuries. | Limitation proper; causation expert testimony required; no Confrontation Clause violation. |
| Should Dr. David be designated as expert on causation? | Dr. David should be his expert on causation. | New expert designation after start of trial not allowed. | District court did not abuse discretion in excluding belated designation. |
| Impact of Amendment 742 on sentence? | Recency points’ removal changes sentencing landscape. | Amendment not retroactive; original guidelines correctly applied; no remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Biggs, 441 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2006) (self-defense, prima facie basis; immediate threat; proportional force)
- United States v. Duran, 59 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 1995) (abuse-of-discretion standard for self-defense instruction)
- United States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (Confrontation Clause; en banc; de novo review of cross-exam limitations)
- United States v. Bensimon, 172 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1999) (cross-examination limits; relevance and prejudice)
- United States v. Yida, 498 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2007) (evidentiary rulings; expert vs lay testimony)
- United States v. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2008) (court management of docket; pretrial disclosures)
- United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) (retroactivity and amendments to guidelines)
- United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2011) (non-retroactive amendments; effect on sentencing guidance)