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. REUB EN EAR

L HAYES, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10055

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-00085-JD-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s Dona

to, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 13, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C ANB Y , SILER , ** and HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. R e ube n Ea

rl Ha y e s (“ Hay e s” ) a

p pe a ls his c onvic tions for (1) be ing a fe lon in posse ssion of a

fire arm an d

am m unition in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 922(g); (2) posse s sion with inte

nt to distribute

c ra c k c o c a ine in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C
. 

# FIL ED

JAN 12 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.841(a )(1); (3) posse ssion with inte nt to distribute

he roin in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1); a

nd (4) c arry ing a

fire arm during a nd in re lation to, or posse ssing a fire arm in furthe ra

nc e o f, a drug tra ffic king c rim e in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 924(c ). Ha

y e s a l s o a ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s prison se nte nc e of 220 m o nths. W e a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not c om m it pla in e rror by

a llowing Offic e r C hris M ore n o’ s la

y te stim ony . S

e e Unite d State

s v . Lloy d , 807 F.3d 1128, 1152 (9th C ir. 2015) (providing tha

t this c ourt “ re vie w[s] te stim ony e lic ite d without obje c tion for pla i n e rror” ). Offic e r M ore n o’ s la y te stim o ny , whic h oc c urre d a fte r a re c e ss in the proc e e dings, wa s “ c le arly se pa ra te [d] ” from

his e xpe rt te s tim o ny . Unite d State s v . Torralba-Me ndia , 784 F.3d 652, 658 (9th C ir. 2015). Thedistric t c ourt instruc te d the j ury tha t Offic e r M ore no’ s la

y opinion wa s “ not the subje c t of e xpe rt te stim ony ” and de line ate d Offic e r M ore no’ s “ dua l role s” a s a n e xpe rt a nd la y witne s s. Se e Torralba-Me ndia , 784 F.3d a t 658; Unite d State

s v . Fre e man , 498 F.3d 893, 904 (9th C ir. 2007). 2. The re w a s suffic ie nt e vide nc e to support Ha y e s’ c onvic tion for posse s sing a

fire a rm in furthe ranc e of a

drug tra ffic king c rim e . The fa c ts e sta blish
a re q uisite ne xus be t

we e n (1) the fire arm

disc ove re d on the floorboa rd of the front drive r’ s se at of Ha

y e s’ ve hic le and (2) the drug tra ffic king c rim e s for whic h Ha y e s
2wa s c onvic te d— posse ssion with inte

nt to distribute

c ra c k c oc a ine and he roin. Se e Unite d State s v . Rios , 449 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th C ir. 2006). Theha ndgun a long with m atc hing loosec artridge s loc at e d on the front pa sse nge r floorboa rd of the
ve hic le we re “ e a sily

a c c e ssible ” to Ha

y e s, who wa s in thedrive r’ s se at. Id. at 1013 (inte rna l que stion m arks a nd c ita tion omitte d ). The fire arm , loose c artridge s, drugs, a n d drug pa

ra phe rna lia we re suffic ie n tly

proxim ate to one anothe r. Se e Unite d State s v . He c tor , 474 F.3d 1150, 1157–58 (9th C ir. 2007). 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly a pplie d the c are e r offe n de r e nha nc e m e nt pre s c ribe d by

the Se nte nc ing Guide line s. S e e U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1(a ). Ha y e s ’ 2006
c onvic tion for posse ssion for sa le of c o c a ine unde r C a lifornia He a l th a nd Sa fe ty C ode § 11351 qualifie s a s a “ c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse . ” Se e 2 1 U.S.C . § 812(c ), sc he d. II(a )(4); U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1(a ). It is now c le arly e sta blishe d tha

t Se c tion 11351 is a

divisible sta tute , am e na

ble to a na l y s is unde r the m odifie d
c ate goric a l a

pproa c h
. Unite d State

s v . Murillo-Alv

arado , 876 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th C ir. 2017). Applying tha t a p proa c h, we c onc lude tha t the c om pla int, inform ation,
a bstra c t of judgm e nt, c le rk’ s m i nute orde r, an d ple a c olloquy c olle c t ive ly de m onstra

te tha t Ha y e s’ § 11351 c onvic tion c orre sponds to posse ssion for sa le of
c oc a ine , a c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse . Se e Unite d State s v . Le al-Ve

ga , 680 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th C ir. 2012); se e also 21 U.S.C . § 812(c ), sc he d. II(a )(4).
3AFFIRM E D.

4