Case ID: f-appx_414/html/0943-01.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. Jose CONTRERAS-RANGEL, aka Jose Antonio Contreras, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10466.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 14, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 17, 2011.
    Lisa Jennis Settel, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Walter Perkel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney Office, District of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Atmore Baggot, Atmore Baggot Attorney at Law, Apache Junction, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern Iowa, Sioux City, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Contreras-Rangel appeals his criminal convictions for conspiring to harbor illegal aliens and harboring illegal aliens. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

Contreras-Rangel argues that the district court erred by admitting hearsay testimony and violating his rights under the Confrontation Clause. However, prior to trial, Contreras-Rangel and the government entered a joint stipulation allowing for the use of the testimony.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the third-party statement under the stipulation. Contreras-Rangel engaged in a lengthy colloquy with the magistrate judge where he made clear that he entered the Joint Stipulation voluntarily. See United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that stipulations will be enforced unless one of the parties’ consent was involuntary or uninformed). The plain language of the Joint Stipulation made the third-party statement admissible. As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statement under the Joint Stipulation.

Nor did the district court violate Contreras-Rangel’s confrontation rights. Contreras-Rangel knowingly and voluntarily waived his confrontation rights as to statements made by the material witnesses. If a defendant stipulates to the use of a statement against him, the defendant waives his right to confront the person making the statement. United States v. Gamba, 541 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Wilson v. Gray, 345 F.2d 282, 286 (9th Cir.1965)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.