FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50081
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03138-LAB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GEORGE WAW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 4, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
George Waw appeals the district court’s order denying his request to vacate
his conviction on selective prosecution grounds. We affirm.
After weighing the evidence put forth by Waw and the government, the
district court concluded that Waw had not established selective prosecution, and,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
further, that even if he had, vacating Waw’s conviction was not an appropriate
remedy. We agree.
As to the latter basis, while United States v. Redondo-Lemos did not
foreclose vacating a conviction as a possible remedy for selective prosecution, the
court “caution[ed] . . . against broader . . . remedies.” 955 F.2d 1296, 1302-03 (9th
Cir. 1992). Waw alleged prejudice only with respect to the plea deal he was
offered and the consequent amount of time he would serve. His guilt and the
decision to prosecute him were not at issue. We cannot fault the district court’s
conclusion that vacating the conviction would not have been appropriate even if
Waw’s selective prosecution claim had merit. See United States v. Chapman, 524
F.3d 1073, 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A court may dismiss an indictment under its
supervisory powers only when the defendant suffers substantial prejudice, and
where no lesser remedial action is available.” (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2