NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30394
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-05295-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STEVEN ALLEN McCRACKEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Steven Allen McCracken appeals pro se from the district court’s orders
denying his motions for recusal and a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
McCracken contends that then-Chief Judge Pechman erred by affirming
*
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).
Judge Leighton’s denial of McCracken’s recusal motion. McCracken argues that
Judge Leighton’s remarks concerning methamphetamine reflected a deep-seated
antagonism toward him and his case. We conclude that there was no abuse of
discretion. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012).
The nature of the drug involved in McCracken’s offense was an appropriate
sentencing consideration, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and the record does not
otherwise reflect that Judge Leighton harbored antagonism towards McCracken or
was biased against him. See McTiernan, 695 F.3d at 891-92.
McCracken also argues that the court should have granted his new trial
motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1). To warrant a new trial,
the movant must satisfy a five-part test. See United States v. Kulczyk, 931 F.2d
542, 548 (9th Cir. 1991). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that McCracken did not meet that test. See id. The evidence
concerning McCracken’s relationship with his business partner was cumulative of
evidence that was presented at trial, the lab report was not new evidence and
McCracken was not diligent in obtaining it, and neither piece of evidence indicated
that “a new trial would probably result in acquittal.” Id.
McCracken’s motion for an extension of time to file his reply brief is denied as
moot. McCracken’s reply brief was filed on September 1, 2016, and considered.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30394