the district court’s Rule 10(e) factual findings in the Settling Order were appropriate, the Defendants have not made the requisite showing of an affirmative courtroom closure for a non-trivial duration. See United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 974 (9th Cir.2003) (a defendant must show not mere closure, but that it was closed affirmatively, completely, and pursuant to judicial act or order); see also United States v. Rivera, 682 F.3d 1223, 1229 (9th Cir.2012) (when a closure is trivial, “exclusion of members of the public from a judicial proceeding does not implicate the constitutional guarantee”); United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1063 (9th Cir.2011) (a courtroom closure must be total and of significant duration); United States v. Ivester, 316 F.3d 955, 959-60 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Settling Order reveals that the
holding that some closures are too trivial to implicate the sixth amendment right to a public trial recognizing that the sixth amendment is not violated every time the public is excluded from a courtroom an unjustified closure may on its facts be so trivial as not to violate the sixth amendment guarantee holding the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial