United States of America v. Allan Roy Goodman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALLAN ROY GOODMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-30081
D.C. Nos.
9:19-cr-00043-DWM-1
9:19-cr-00043-DWM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 5, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: CHRISTEN and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SILVER,*** District
Judge.
In 2020, Defendant Allan Roy Goodman was convicted of five drug
offenses, one firearm offense, and one count of obstructing justice. Defendant
* 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).
*** The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
appeals the district court’s rejection of his proposed jury instruction, allowance of
leading questions, and denial of a continuance of trial. Because the parties are
familiar with the facts, we recite only those necessary to decide the appeal.
Defendant’s proposed jury instruction regarding the possession of a firearm
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime charge was synonymous with the district
court’s given instruction. See United States v. Krouse, 370 F.3d 965, 967–68 (9th
Cir. 2004). Thus, the given instruction adequately encompassed his defense theory
and there is no basis for relief. See United States v. Whittemore, 776 F.3d 1074,
1078 (9th Cir. 2015).
Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) “vests broad discretion in trial courts” to
permit leading questions on direct examination, and reversal is proper “only if the
judge’s action . . . amounted to, or contributed to, the denial of a fair trial.” Miller
v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 885 F.2d 498, 514 (9th Cir. 1989), as amended on denial
of reh’g and reh’g en banc (Sept. 19, 1989) (citation and internal quotations
omitted). Because the witness, a stroke victim, repeatedly displayed emotion and
reluctance to testify, and the leading questions were limited in scope, permitting
those questions was within the district court’s discretion.
Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of a continuance of trial.
Defendant failed to show prejudice, which is required to find error. United States
v. Kloehn, 620 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --