United States of America v. Steven Bitner

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN BITNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30170
D.C. No. 1:07-CR-00143-RFC-1
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 2, 2010**
Portland, Oregon
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Steven Bitner appeals the denial of his Motion for
Change of Venue filed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b) (“Rule 21
motion”). Bitner was indicted in the District of Montana and charged with
FILED
MAR 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
advertisement of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. Bitner,
a resident of Oregon, filed the Rule 21 motion requesting the matter be transferred
to the District of Oregon. After the district court denied that motion, he entered
into a conditional plea agreement which allowed him to appeal the denial of the
motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bitner’s Rule 21
motion. It properly identified and applied the factors listed in Platt v. Minnesota
Mining & Manufacturing Co., 376 U.S. 240, 243–44 (1964), to determine whether
Bitner’s case should have been transferred. It is not our function to reweigh the
factors once we are satisfied that the district court applied the appropriate criteria.
Id. at 244–45.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --