NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AARON JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM, No. 23-35262

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:22-cv-05165-MKD

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Mary K. Dimke, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Federal pretrial detainee Aaron Joseph Cunningham appeals from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition

challenging his pretrial detention and seeking $ 100,000,000 in gold bullion. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see McNeely v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) and we affirm.

Cunningham’s claim that pretrial detention categorically violates

defendants’ due process rights fails. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 742, 751-55 (1987). Even assuming Cunningham can assert individualized

challenges to his pretrial detention in a § 2241 petition—an issue we need not and

do not decide—he has not shown any constitutional violations here.1

This disposition is without prejudice to any motion Cunningham’s counsel

may wish to file in his ongoing criminal proceedings in the district court

challenging his pretrial detention.

We do not consider Cunningham’s remaining arguments, which he raised for

the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.

2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

1 Even if Cunningham could establish that his pretrial detention violated his constitutional rights, he cannot seek damages on that basis. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (“damages are not an available habeas remedy”).

2 23-35262