USA V. BRENT WILLIAMS, No. 16-10375 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 16-10375 16-10423 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01492-ROS v. BRENT F. WILLIAMS; GUY ANDREW WILLIAMS, MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jack Zouhary, District Judge, Presiding** Submitted January 16, 2018*** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Brent F. Williams and Guy Andrew Williams appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motions under Federal * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1) seeking new trials on their criminal charges for conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and transactional money laundering. Appellants raise several claims premised on the assumption that the Department of Justice lacked authority to bring charges against them absent a preindictment enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Contrary to appellants’ contentions, neither the SEC “nor its staff has the authority or responsibility for instituting, conducting, settling, or otherwise disposing of criminal proceedings. That authority and responsibility are vested in the Attorney General and representatives of the Department of Justice.” 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(f). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting appellants’ subject matter jurisdiction, Brady, and prosecutorial authority claims. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1259 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Nor did the district court err by rejecting appellant’s remaining contentions that the prosecutors lacked authority. The United States Attorneys’ Manual, on which appellants rely, “is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal.” United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations omitted). And, in any event, appellants have not shown that the prosecution of their criminal charges was contrary to any protocols. 2 16-10375 & 16-10423 We do not consider appellants’ remaining arguments, which they failed to raise in their direct appeals and were not a basis for their motions for new trials. See United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714, 721 (9th Cir. 2001) (declining to consider issue raised for the first time on appeal); United States v. Nagra, 147 F.3d 875, 882 (9th Cir. 1998) (declining to consider claims that have could have been raised in an earlier appeal but were not). The motion for immediate release pending appeal is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 3 16-10375 & 16-10423
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.
