USA V. SAMUEL REZENE, No. 17-30174 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-30174 D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00185-JLR v. MEMORANDUM* SAMUEL N. REZENE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Samuel N. Rezene appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Rezene argues that the district court erred by granting the government’s * 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). motion to preclude him from presenting a justification defense. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1991), we agree with the district court that, construing the facts in Rezene’s favor, Rezene did not make a prima facie showing that he had no reasonable legal alternative to possessing a firearm. See United States v. Perdomo-Espana, 522 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth elements of justification defense). Specifically, Rezene did not show that seeking the aid of law enforcement was an unreasonable alternative to gun possession. See United States v. Wofford, 122 F.3d 787, 791 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Our cases uniformly require the defendant to seek aid from law enforcement before taking matters into his own hands.”). Rezene argues that his contacts with law enforcement regarding the violent acts against him show that he did seek law enforcement help or, alternatively, that doing so would have been futile. However, the record reflects that rather than seeking the aid of law enforcement to find the perpetrators, Rezene repeatedly withheld relevant information from investigators regarding the perpetrators’ identity and motivation. Moreover, Rezene did not report to law enforcement all of the violent acts against him. On this record, the district court did not err by precluding Rezene from asserting a justification defense. See Schoon, 971 F.2d at 195. AFFIRMED. 2 17-30174
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.
