Case ID: f-appx_533/html/0738-01.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. Jorge RUSSELL-GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50181.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 10, 2013.
    
    Filed July 15, 2013.
    Christopher Alexander, Bruce R. Cas-tetter, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Kenneth J. Troiano, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant Jorge Russell-Guerrero appeals the district court’s entry of criminal judgment against him. We affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony of a special agent with the Department of Homeland Security. See United States v. Hayat, 710 F.3d 875, 900 (9th Cir.2013) (“We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony.”). The government provided adequate notice of its intention to call the agent to testify about unknowing couriers. Because the government charged Defendant with conspiracy and because Defendant claimed that he had no knowledge of the drugs, the district court did not abuse its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting the testimony. United States v. Sepulveda-Barraza, 645 F.3d 1066, 1072-73 (9th Cir. 2011). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 704. United States v. Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169, 1178 (9th Cir.2001), overruled on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Mendez, 476 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir.2007). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding questions pertaining to hearsay, and those exclusions did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 703 or the Confrontation Clause.

2. The district court neither abused its discretion nor committed plain error by denying the motion for a new trial.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.