NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 18 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50514
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cr-02953-IEG-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JORGE HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 4, 2009**
Pasadena, California
Before: T.G. NELSON, BYBEE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Hernandez appeals his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. This court
has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Here, the indictment alleged the elements of the offense and provided
sufficient detail to give Hernandez notice of the crime alleged. See United States v.
Alber, 56 F.3d. 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 1995). Hernandez’s claim that the indictment
did not protect against double jeopardy is waived because he failed to argue this
issue beyond a cursory assertion. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); Ghahremani v.
Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2007)
The district court neither misapplied the correct burden of proof nor
attempted to shift the burden of proof; the district court’s statements reflect its
effort to analyze the record and weigh the evidence. See United States v. Brobst,
558 F.3d 982, 998 (9th Cir. 2009) (burden shifting); United States v. Banuelos, 322
F.3d 700, 704 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of proof).
Lastly, the cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable because we have found
no error in the asserted issues. See United States v. Berry, 627 F.2d 193, 201 (9th
Cir. 1980).
We have considered and reject all other arguments Hernandez raises on
appeal.
AFFIRMED.