N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R AFAEL GUZM A

N-SOLIS, AKA R a fa e l B uga s Guz m an,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10619

D.C . No. 4:14-c r-01729-C KJ-DTF-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R AFAEL GUZM A

N-SOLIS, AKA R a fa e l B uga s Guz m an,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10620

D.C . No. 4:12-c r-01696-C KJ-DTF-1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na C indy K. Jorge nson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding 

# FIL ED
N OV 17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d Nove m b e r 15, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge , a nd EZR A, *** Distric t Judge
. R a fa e l Guz m an-Solis a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion for ille ga l re e ntry a fte r de porta tion, a nd the re voc at ion of his supervise d re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
. B e c a

use the pa rtie s are fa m ilia

r with the history of this c a se , we ne e d

not re c ount it.

I The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Guz m an -Solis’ s re que s t for a K astigar he aring o n t

h e im p rop erl y r e c o rd e d a

t to r n ey - c l i e n t me e t ing . Unde r our pre c e de nt, Guz m an -Solis ha d the burde n to e sta blish a prim a

fa c ie c a se of pre j udic e re sulting from

the intrusion. U

nite d State

s v . Danie lson , 325 F.3d 1054, 1071 (9th C ir. 2003). To m ak e out a prim a fa c ie c a se unde r D a nie lson , he ha d to show tha t the gove rnm e nt a c te d a ffirm a t ive ly to intrudeinto theattorne y -c lie nt
re lationship; pa ssive posse ssion of inform a tion is not e nough. Id. The distric t
c ourt re a sona

bly found, ba se d on e vide nc e in the re c ord, tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble David A. Ezra , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion. 2re c o rding of the attorne y -c lie nt m e e ting wa s ina dve rte nt a nd tha t no m e m be rs of the p rose c ution te am

le arne d the c onte nts of the privile g e d c onve rsa tion. As a
re sult, it did not a

buse its disc re tion in de c l ining to hold a K astigar he aring or in de c lining to shift the

burde n to the gove rnm e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Ande rson , 79 F.3d 1522, 1525 (9th C ir. 1996). The distric t c ourt a l so did not err in de c lining to gra nt the m otion to dism

i ss the i ndic t m e nt ba se d on due proc e ss grounds. Se e Unite d State s v . Blac k, 733 F.3d 294, 301 (9th C ir. 2013) (sta ting sta nda rd of re vie w is de novo). “ To viola te due proc e s s, gove rnm e nta l c onduc t m ust be so grossly

shoc king a

nd so outra g e ous a s to viola te the unive rsa l se nse of justic e ,” Unite d State s v . Barre ra-More no , 951 F.2d 1089, 1092 (1991) (c iting Unite d State s v . Re stre po , 930 F.2d 705, 712 (9th C ir. 1991)), a

nd to “ a b solute ly ba r the gove rnm e nt from

invoking judic ia l proc e s se s to obta i n a

c onvic tion.” Blac k, 733 F.3d a t 302. Guz m an-Solis fa ile d

to m e e t this “ e xtre m e ly

high sta nda rd.” Se e Id. a t 298. Guz m an-Solis wa s not pre judic e d by

the re c orde d c onve rsa t ions or by the gove rnm e nt’ s use of a

n im prope r proc e ss to obtain his m e dic a l re c ords. Danie lson , 325 F.3d a

t 1069 (c la rify ing the re is no Sixth Ame ndm e nt viola tion unle ss the re is “ s ubsta

ntia l pre judic e ” ); se e also Unite

s State s v . Roge rs , 751 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th C ir. 1985) (c iting U nite d State

s v . Se ars, Roe buc k

& C o., Inc
. , 719
3F.2d 1386, 1391–92 (9th C i r. 1983), c e rt. de nie d , 465 U.S. 1079 (1984); Unite d

State s v . Ow e n , 580 F.2d 365, 367 (9th C ir. 1978)) (sta ting “ an indic tm e nt m ay

not be dism isse d for gove rnm e nta l m isc onduc t a bse nt pre judic e to the de fe nda

nt” ). II The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de c lining to use

its supe rvisory

powe rs to dismi ss the indic tm e nt. S e e Blac k, 733 F.3d a

t 301 (sta ting sta nda rd of re vie w is a

buse of disc re tion). The gove rnm e n t’ s c onduc t, e ve n if im prope r, wa s not so “

pate ntly e gre gious” a s to wa rra nt dismissa l of the indic tm e nt
a ga inst Guzm an-Solis. Se e Unite s State s v . Roge rs , 751 F.2d 1074, 1080–81 (9th C ir. 1985). M ore ove r, Guz m an-Solis did not show tha t he wa s pre

judic e d by the gove rnm e nt’ s posse ssion of there c orde d c onve rsa tions or by the gove rnm e nt’ s fa ilure to use the prope r proc e ss to obtai n his m e d ic a l re c ords. III The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing the m otion for a c quitta l. In
re vie wing a

distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion for judgme nt of a c quitta l ba se d on insuffic ie nt e vide nc e of ide ntific a tion, we a pply the sa m e te st tha

t the distric t c ourt
m ust e m ploy in de c iding whe the r to gra nt the m otion in the

first insta nc e . Unite d State s v . Ale x ande r , 48 F.3d 1477, 1489–90 (9th C ir. 1995) (c iting Unite d State s v . Luc as , 963 F.2d 243, 247 (9th C ir. 1992); U nite d State

s v . K aplan , 554 F.2d 958,
4963 (9th C i r. 1977), c e rt. de nie d sub nom. Dolw ig v . Unite d State s , 434 U.S. 956 (1978); Unite d State

s v . Le al , 509 F.2d 122, 125 (9th C ir. 1975)).

“ A m otion for judgme nt of a c quitta l should be grante d only

if, vie wing the
e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to the gove rnm e n t, no ra tiona l trie r of fa c t
c ould find be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt tha

t the de fe nda

n t is the pe rson who
c om m itte d the c ha

rge d c rim e .” Id . at 1490 (c iting Luc as , 963 F.2d a t 247). W e drawa ll re a sona

b le infe re nc e s tha

t c an be drawn from the e vide n c e in fa vor of the gove rnm e nt. Id . “ [I] n-c ourt ide ntific a tion by a witne ss is not ne c e ssa

rily re quire d” if “ the e vide nc e at tria l is suffic ie nt to pe rm it the infe re nc e tha t the pe rson on tria l
wa s the pe rson who c om

m itte d the c rim e .” Id . (c iting Unite d State s v . Fe rn , 696 F.2d 1269, 1276 (11th C ir. 1983)). Vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora b le to the gove rnm e nt a

nd
c re d iting thegove rnm e nt with a ll the infe re nc e s tha t c an be drawn from

the
e vide nc e , a

ra tiona l trie r of fa c t

c ould find be y ond a re a sona ble doubt tha

t Guz m an-Solis is the

pe rson who c om

m itte d the c ha

rge d c rim e . AFFIRM E D.

5