United States v. Davis
United States v. Davis
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 07-17194
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. CV-05-03756-DLJ CR-98-40082-DLJ v.
KEVIN LEE DAVIS, aka Slow and MEMORANDUM * Yellow Dude,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D. Lowell Jensen, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 12, 2011 ** San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Davis’s case was not yet final on direct appeal when the Supreme Court
decided Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). See Caspari v. Bohlen, 510
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). page 2 U.S. 383, 390 (1994) (“[A] conviction and sentence become final for purposes of
retroactivity analysis when . . . a timely filed petition [for writ of certiorari] has
been finally denied.”). Under Crawford, the admission of Medina’s statement
violated Davis’s Confrontation Clause rights—a point the government now
concedes. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68. We therefore remand for the district
court to determine if the error was prejudicial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished