United States of America v. Robert John Collins

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT JOHN COLLINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-16409
D.C. Nos. 3:98-cv-00114-LRH
3:95-cr-00035-LRH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Robert John Collins appeals pro se from the district court’s
denial of his motion seeking the disclosure of DNA test results under 42 U.S.C.
§ 14132(b)(3)(C), and new DNA testing under 18 U.S.C. § 3600. We have
FILED
MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16409 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court ruled that there is no private right of action under section
14132 to obtain DNA evidence, and that Collins was not entitled to new DNA
testing because he failed to meet the statutory requirements of section 3600. On
appeal, Collins fails to argue that there is a private right of action under section
14132, or that he meets the requirements of section 3600. Instead, he raises new
arguments to support his claim that he is entitled to the DNA evidence. Collins’
arguments do not fall within any of the exceptions to the general rule that an issue
may not be raised for the first time on appeal. See Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F. 3d
1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --