United States of America v. Rodney Lee Rollness

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RODNEY LEE ROLLNESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-30240
D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00041-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rodney Lee Rollness appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his
motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
FILED
OCT 5 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-30240 2
Rollness contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the government
failed to provide him evidence indicating that a witness had identified a person
other than Rollness as having committed the murder for which Rollness was
convicted. This contention is belied by the record, and the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it denied Rollness’ motion for a new trial under Fed. R.
Crim. P. 33. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261-63 (9th Cir. 2009)
(en banc).
Rollness raises a number of issues for the first time on appeal, including
claims that the government failed to provide exculpatory evidence under Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); that his counsel provided ineffective assistance;
and that his right to due process was violated because of cumulative errors. These
claims are not properly before the court. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b). Moreover,
Rollness has failed to show plain error concerning these remaining claims. See
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that an evidentiary
hearing was unnecessary. See United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184,
1188-89 (9th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --