USA V. WAYNE PARTIN, No. 15-30308 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 18 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-30308 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00008-DLC-1 v. MEMORANDUM* WAYNE ALAN PARTIN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted October 5, 2016** Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. For the third time, Wayne Alan Partin seeks to challenge imposition of Sentencing Guidelines enhancements to his conviction for access with intent to view child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Partin * 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). contends United States v. Kuchinski, 469 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006), prevents imposition of these enhancements. Because this issue has already been addressed by a previous panel, the law of the case prevents us from considering the question anew. See United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). Partin’s argument that the previous panel’s decision should be afforded little deference under United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1986), is unpersuasive. Unlike the motions panel in Houser, the previous merits panel provided more than sufficient explanation of its decision. See United States v. Partin, 565 F. App’x 626, 626-27 (9th Cir. 2014). That Partin chose not to seek en banc review or file a certiorari petition is of no consequence. Nothing prevented him from doing so. He chose to take his chances on remand. Lack of success there does not mandate review here. Partin does not convince us that any of the circumstances meriting reconsideration of a previously resolved question are present. See Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993). We therefore decline to do so. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
