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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ESTEB AN B A

NUELOS AR

M ENTA, Jr., AKA Este ba

n B anue los-Arm e nta , Jr., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-10190

D.C . No. 4:10-c r-02684-R C C C RP-2 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R ane r C . C ollins, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 15, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd HELLER STEIN, *** Se nior Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED MAR 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

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

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

ble Alvin K. He lle rste in, Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Este ba n B anue l os-Arm e nta , Jr., a ppe a ls the re voc ation of his supe rvise d re le a se . W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion a

nd a ffirm . 1 Unite d State

s v . Harv e y , 659 F.3d 1272, 1274 (9th C ir. 2011). While on supe rvise d re le a se for a fe de ra l c onvic tion, Arm e nta wa s a rre ste d for, an d ple a de d guilty

to, c om m itting a sta te c rim e . Afte r Arm e nta

se rve d his se nte nc e for the sta

t e c rim e , he wa s tra

nsfe rre d dire c t ly

to fe de ra l c ustody

for an e vide ntia ry he a ring on thegove rnm e nt’ s pe tition to revoke Arm e nta ’ s supe rvise d re le a se (ba se d on his c om m i ssion of thesta

te c rim e — a

viola tion of his c onditions of re l e a se ). Arm e nta

a s se rte d tha t the gove rnm e nt fa ile d to prove he wa s the sa m e m an who c om

m itte d the sta

te c rim e . In pa

rtic ula r, Arm e nta

obje c te d to thedistric t c ourt’ s a d m ission of a

printout from

the Ariz ona

De pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions’ we bsite (“ ADOC pe n pa c k a bstra c t” ) to prove tha

t Arm e nta ple a de d guilty

to, a nd se rve d tim e for, the sta

te c rim e . Arm e nta

a lso sought to c om

p e l disc ove ry

of the ide ntitie s of the vic t im s in thesta te c rim e to prove tha

t a diffe re nt m an with the sam e nam e a s Arm e nta

c om m itte d the sta

te c rim e s. Arm e nta ’ s a

rgum e nts a

re without m e rit.

1 Arm e nta ’ s M o tion to Strike Adde ndum

and All Argum e nts B a se d Upon Adde n dum

is de n ie d. -2-1. The distric t c ourt did not viola te due proc e ss by

a dm itting the

ADOC pe n pa c k a b stra c t, be c a

use the e vide nc e wa s re l ia ble . S e eUnite d State

s v . W alk e r , 117 F.3d 417, 420 (9th C ir. 1997) (tria l c ourt’ s fa ilure to c onduc t ba l anc ing te st wa s ha rm le s s e rror “ g i ve n the re l ia bility of the e vide nc e ” ). The ADOC pe n pa c k a bstra c t m e re ly

c onfirm e d the inform ation thedistric t c o urt ha d a lre a dy le arne d from c e rtifie d doc um e nts a

nd witne ss te stim ony . In a ddition, the ADOC pe n pa c k a bstra c t wa s like ly

a dm issibleunde r the public re c ords e xc e ption to he arsay . Se e id. at 421 (c iting Fe d. R . Evid. 803(8)). Finally , Arm e nta ha s not shown tha

t he wa s pre judic e d by

the a dm ission. Se eid. Arm e nta doe s not c o nte nd tha

t the ADOC pe n pa c k a

bstra c t c o nta ine d ina c c urate inform ation or tha t he did not c om

m it the sta te c rim e re fle c te d

the re in. Nor c o uld he . As de m onstra te d by c e rtifie d doc um e nts a

nd witne ss te s tim ony , Arm e nta ple d guilty to the sta te c rim e and wa s transfe rre d dire c tly

from sta te to fe de ra l c ustody , suc h tha t the re c ould be no doubt that the m an who ple d guilty

to the sta te c rim e s wa s the m an sitting a t the fe de ra l re voc ation he aring. 2. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr by de ny i ng Arm e nta ’ s m otion to c om pe l disc ove ry of vic tim ide ntitie s. Se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 59(a ), 52(b) (fa ilure to pre se rve an obje c tion a

t the distric t c ourt limits our a ppe lla te re vie w to pla in e rror). Vic tim te stim ony re ga rding thesta

te c rim e wa s im

m ate ria l to there voc ation proc e e ding, -3-be c a

use Arm e nt a

ha d a lre a dy

ple d guilty

to the c rim e in sta

te c ourt. Thus, “the inte re s t of justic e d[id] not re q uire the witne ss[e s] [Arm e nta sought to subpoe

na ] to a ppe ar.” Fe d. R . C rim . P. 32.1(b)(2)(C ). AFFIRM E D.

-4-