USA V. ALAN NIXON, No. 16-50097 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 17 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-50097 D.C. No. 8:12-cr-00240-JVS-10 v. ALAN DAVID NIXON, MEMORANDUM * Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Argued & Submitted October 7, 2016 Pasadena, California Before: TROTT, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Alan David Nixon appeals the district court’s refusal to modify his conditions of probation to allow him to use marijuana for medical purposes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we now affirm. Nixon argues that the district court violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and deprived him of due process * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. by not allowing him to use marijuana for medical purposes during his probationary term. 1 Because Nixon did not object on these grounds in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that forfeited challenges to conditions of supervised release are reviewed for plain error). Nixon bears the burden of demonstrating plain error, United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993), and he has not met that burden. Nixon does not provide any meaningful argument to support his argument that the probation condition violates due process, so that argument is waived. See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 925 (9th Cir. 2008); accord Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). Any possible construction of Nixon’s Eighth Amendment claim would require consideration of his personal medical condition. Nixon has not put evidence of his condition into the record and, in fact, expressly waived his right to an evidentiary hearing in the district court. Nixon’s Eighth Amendment argument therefore fails. AFFIRMED. 1 We address in a concurrently filed opinion Nixon’s argument that a congressional appropriations rider prohibits the district court from restricting his use of medical marijuana as a condition of probation. 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.
