NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. KIRISIMASI MASUISUI,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10349
D.C. No. 1:14

- cr - 00173

- DKW

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 15, 2022

Honolulu, Hawaii Before: HAWKINS, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Defendant Kirisimasi Masuisui (“Masuisui”) appeals his conviction and 292

- month sentence for conspiring to possess/distribute methamphetamine and cocaine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. We affirm.
The r e was no abuse of discretion i n den ying Masuisui’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Masuisui did not demonstrate a “fair and just reason” for requesting

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

MAR 17 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

withdrawal of his plea nearly two years after its entry. See Fed . R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. E nsminger , 567 F.3d 587, 590

‒ 91 (9 th Cir. 2009). The district court conducted an adequate investigation into any medications Masuisui was taking at the time of the plea colloquy, and there is no indication from the record that the plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent or that the medications otherwise impaired Masuisui’s ability to participate in the proceedings. See United
States v. Carter , 795 F.3d 947, 952

‒ 55 ( 9th Cir. 2015).
Nor did the district court clearly err in finding Masuisui had obstructed justice and appl ying a two

- level enhancement for such conduct at sentencing. The district court properly relied on evidence that had been submitted in connection with the government’s motion for detention in which two witnesses indicated Masuisui and
his wife had sent a verba l and written communication to co

- defendant Auelua. The
court found that this communication, even if not a direct threat, was at least an attempt to unlawfully influence a co

- defendant/witness not to cooperate with
authorities. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Alt hough the witnesses did not personally appear at the detention hearing , their statements given to the government were substantially
similar , and the court found them reliable. See United States v. Berry , 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9 th Cir. 2001) (court may rely o n hearsay at sentencing). Likewise, there was no clear err or in finding Masuisui was an organizer or leader of a conspiracy involving five or more participants. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).3

The court found that at least five individuals (including Masuisui himself) were involved in the conspiracy, most of whom Masuisui named in either his plea colloquy or post

- arrest statement. The district court also adequately set forth reasons for finding Masuisui was an organizer or leader within the conspiracy, includi ng his control over shipments between San Francisco and Hawaii, setting prices, and directing others where and when to transport drugs and/or currency. See United
States v. Rivera , 527 F.3d 891, 908

‒ 09 (9 th Cir. 2008).
T here was no abuse of discretion in denying Masuisui’s motion for a seventh continuance of his sentencing, which ultimately took place nearly three years after entering his guilty plea. See U nited States v. Walter

- Eze , 869 F.3d 891, 907

‒ 08 (9 th Cir. 2017). Nor did the court violate Rule 32 , which requires the court at sentencing to “verify that the defendant and the defendant’s attorney have read and discussed the presentence report [“PSR”] and any addendum to the report.” Fed. R. Crim P. 32 (i)(1)(A). Although Masuisui’s s entencing counsel stated she had not gone over the PSR “page by page” with him, she further indicated she had reviewed the PSR with him “in general” and believed he knew and understood its contents.
Even if this were considered error, any such error was ha rmless because Masuisui’s prior attorneys had filed objections to the PSR, which his new attorney agreed with and argued at sentencing. Masuisui has not affirmatively alleged that he failed to review the PSR with prior counsel. In any event, Masuisui ca nnot4

demonstrate that there were material additional objections that could have been made to the PSR which resulted in prejudice to him. See United States v. Soltero , 510 F.3d 858, 862

‒ 6 4 (9 th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) ; United States v. Davila

Escovedo , 36 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 1994)

. 1
AFFIRMED.

1 Appellee’s motion to strike portions of the opening brief (Dkt. Entry No. 28) is denied as moot.