NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 16-30117
16-30158
Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 1:14-CR-02074-WFN
v. 1:14-CR-02058-WFN
CHARLES PETE EYLE, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 29, 2017
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOULD and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN, ** District
Judge.
Charles Eyle was convicted of two counts of attempted aggravated sexual
abuse of a child and one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. In a separate
trial, Eyle was convicted of being a felon in possession of ammunition. Eyle was
sentenced in a consolidated hearing, and his appeals of both convictions are
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, United States District Judge
for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
1
consolidated in this Court.
With respect to his sex-abuse convictions, Eyle contends that the district
court erred in allowing the child victim, D.E., to testify via two-way video without
holding an evidentiary hearing on the Government’s motion for video testimony.
Eyle argues that the district court’s ruling violated both the Confrontation Clause—
as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845
(1988)—and the statute prescribing alternative procedures for children testifying in
sex-abuse cases, 18 U.S.C. § 3509(b)(1)(B). We review the Sixth Amendment and
statutory-interpretation claims de novo. United States v. Yazzie, 743 F.3d 1278,
1288 (9th Cir. 2014). We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error.
Neither the Confrontation Clause nor § 3509 require the district court to hold
an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on the Government’s motion for video
testimony. The district court’s findings that D.E. was fearful of the defendant were
appropriate and sufficient to allow were appropriate and sufficient to allow video
testimony.
Eyle next contends that the district court erred in sentencing him as a
“career offender” under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1(a) because his
prior child-sex-abuse convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(1) and 2244(a)(3) are
not “crimes of violence” within the meaning of the Guidelines. We review de novo
a district court’s determination that a prior conviction constitutes a crime of
violence under the Guidelines. It is well-established in this circuit that child sex
2
abuse is per se a crime of violence. United States v. Granbois, 376 F.3d 993, 996
(9th Cir. 2004). Thus, the district court did not err in enhancing Eyle’s sentence in
this case.
AFFIRMED.
3