UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10502

Decided: September 23, 2019

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Mark Alexander Inciong, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Marion Percell, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ - Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff - Appellee Ernesto Hernandez, Pro Se

MEMORANDUM **

Ernesto Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his motion for judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez claims that the district court erred by declining to take judicial notice of Hernandez’s allegation that the government attorneys who prosecuted his case were not properly appointed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying this request because Hernandez has failed to show that his allegation was relevant to any pending proceeding, and has also failed to show that it was “not subject to reasonable dispute.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), (d); United States v. Woods, 335 F.3d 993, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review). Furthermore, the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the request for judicial notice.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law