Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cameron BELL, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM ***
Cameron Bell appeals his conviction for the crime of felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.
(1) Bell first asserts that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence found when an officer discovered the gun while examining the contents of a backpack that was found on the sidewalk. We disagree. After Bell had foisted the backpack upon his wife and then run off, she left it on the sidewalk and walked away. The district court determined that she had abandoned the backpack, and denied the motion to suppress. The district court did not commit clear error 1 when it determined that the backpack was abandoned by Bell’s wife.2 Thus, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress.3
(2) Bell also argues that his conviction must be overturned because the district court evidenced such bias and partiality that it should have recused itself,4 but failed to do so. We have reviewed the record and disagree. While the district court did at times express some impatience with Bell, who was representing himself, nothing in the record suggests that this is one of those rare circumstances 5 where the court’s conduct was “so extreme” 6 that it bespoke an “ ‘inability to render fair judgment.’ ” 7 The district court did not commit error (much less plain error) when it did not issue a recusal order.
(3) Finally, Bell asserts that the indictment should have been dismissed because the felon in possession statute 8 does not require a sufficient nexus between his actions and interstate commerce.9 However, both the Supreme Court 10 and this court 11 have previously determined that the “minimal nexus” 12 required by § 922(g)(1) suffices. Bell’s wish that the law were different cannot be granted by us. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S. Ct. 1917, 1921–22, 104 L. Ed. 2d 526 (1989) (this court must “[leave] to [the] Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions”); United States v. Green, 722 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Alderman, 565 F.3d at 643, 648.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. See United States v. Ruiz, 428 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Burnette, 698 F.2d 1038, 1047–48 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Kendall, 655 F.2d 199, 203 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Jackson, 544 F.2d 407, 409 (9th Cir. 1976); see also Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573–74, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L. Ed. 2d. 518 (1985); Aspen Skiing Co. v. Cherrett (In re Cherrett), 873 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017).
2. See United States v. Nordling, 804 F.2d 1466, 1469–70 (9th Cir. 1986); Kendall, 655 F.2d at 200–02; cf. Burnette, 698 F.2d at 1047–48; Jackson, 544 F.2d at 409–10.
3. We need not, and do not, consider the alternative bases to affirm propounded by the government.
4. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(1). Because the recusal issue was not raised before the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2008).
5. See Holland, 519 F.3d at 913–14, 914 n.4.
6. United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1157, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1994).
7. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d at 797; see also United States v. McChesney, 871 F.3d 801, 807–08 (9th Cir. 2017).
8. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
9. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
10. See Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 1969, 52 L. Ed. 2d 582 (1977).
11. See United States v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456, 1461–62 (9th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Alderman, 565 F.3d 641, 645 (9th Cir. 2009).
12. Scarborough, 431 U.S. at 575, 97 S.Ct. at 1969.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-10463
Decided: March 27, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)