Unpublished Disposition, 912 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 912 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1990)

No. 89-56193.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges, and McKIBBEN,*  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM** 

Mount was convicted after a jury trial for seven misdemeanor violations of the Los Angeles rent control ordinance. She raises numerous issues on appeal from the denial of her habeas petition.

For the reasons stated in the magistrate's report and upon a thorough review of the record, we are convinced that, as to the issues Mount did raise below,1  the rent control ordinance passes constitutional muster and Mount's trial proceeded without federal constitutional infirmity.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The Honorable Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

 1

As a general rule, this court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. Bolker v. Commissioner, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985). Upon consideration, we conclude this appeal does not present circumstances falling within any of the recognized exceptions to this general rule. Id. Although we affirm the district court's finding that failure to admit the "administrative guidelines" does not violate due process, Mount did not argue below, and we do not decide here, whether failure to admit the "administrative guidelines" supports her ineffective assistance of counsel, entrapment, or estoppel claims. Similarly, we affirm the district court's finding on the burden of proof argument in the jury instruction context, but we will not consider for the first time on appeal Mount's application of the burden of proof argument to the void for vagueness, takings, prosecutorial misconduct or equal protection contexts. Finally, Mount did not assert below and we do not consider the alleged Contracts Clause violation

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.