Case ID: f-appx_36/html/0613-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Israel TAFOLLA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 01-50464.
    D.C. No. CR-00-02549-MLH.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 6, 2002.
    
    Decided June 12, 2002.
    Before HALL, SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant/Defendant Israel Tafolla (“Ta-folla”) appeals his conviction and sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii).

Tafolla asserts that his defense was “blindsided” by the prosecution’s introduction of inadmissible Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence. Because Tafolla did not object to this testimony, we review for plain error. United States v. Crawford, 239 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir.2001). No plain error occurred because the evidence was admissible. See United States v. Hardy, 279 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir.2002). Additionally, the evidence in the record, even disregarding the disputed 404(b) evidence, easily meets the required standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

The district court’s evidentiary rulings were not clearly erroneous and the jury’s verdict was consistent with the evidence presented at trial. See Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1323, 1328 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.