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. DAVID ALAN GONZALES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30242

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-00089-SLG-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 Ala ska Sharon L. Gle a son, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2015 Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : SC HR OEDER , R A W LINSON, a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. David Ala

n Gonz a le s a

ppe a ls his c onvic tions for drug tra ffic king c onspira c y , in viola

t i on of 21 U.S.C . §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), a nd posse ssion of a c ontrolle d substa

nc e with inte nt to distribute , in viola t ion of 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a )(1). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED AUG 25 2015 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 . 36-3.1. The distric t c ourt a dm itte d into e vide nc e a R e ve rse Look-Up R e port to

show tha t Gonz a le s’ s c e ll phoneha d re pe ate d ly tra c ke d the shipm e nt of a pa c ka ge c onta ining ove r 50 gra

m s of m e tha

m phe tam ine . The re port wa s a utom atic a lly ge ne ra te d whe n

a posta l inspe c tor e nte re d the pa c ka ge ’ s tra c king num be r into a U.S. Posta l Se rvic e data

ba se . Gonz a le s c h a l le nge s the a dm ission of the re port on he arsay and C onfronta

tion C la use grounds. B e c a

use the R e ve rse Look-Up R e port wa s a utom atic a lly

c o m pute r-ge ne ra te d

without huma

n input or re vie w, it is not a sta te m e nt of a

“ pe rson,” Fe d. R . Evid. 801(a), and the re fore is not subje c t to the rule a ga inst he arsay . Se e Unite d State s v . Lizarraga-Tirado , 789 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ [M ] a c hine sta te m e nts a re n’ t he arsay .” ). B e c a

use the re port is not he arsay , it is a lso not subje c t to theC onfronta t ion C l a use . Se e id. ; Unite d State s v . C azare s , 788 F.3d 956, 979 (9th C ir. 2015). 2. “ To e sta

blish a drug c onspira c y , the gove rnm e n t m ust prove (1) an a gre e m e nt to a c c om

plish a n ille ga l obje c tive ; a

nd (2) the inte nt to c o m

m it the unde rly ing offe nse .” Unite d State s v . Re e d , 575 F.3d 900, 923 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Iriarte -Orte

ga , 113 F.3d 1022, 1024 (9th C i r. 1997)). Vie wing thee vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora b le to the prose c ution, a

rat iona l juror c ould infe r that Gonz a le s pa rtic ipate d in a

drug tra ffic king c onspira c y . Se e Unite d State s v . Minc o ff , 574 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th C ir. 2009).
2A pa c ka ge c onta ining a la rge qua ntity of m e tha

m p he tam ine wa s a ddre sse d to “ Dav e ” at a

n a ddre ss in Anc hora ge , Ala ska . A c e ll phonere giste re d to Gonz a le s re pe ate dly

tra c ke d the shipm e nt of the pa c k a ge and c onta ine d a photogra ph of the pa c ka ge ’ s tra c king num

be r. Gonz a le s a

rrive d at the de live ry a ddre ss shortly a fte r the p a c ka ge wa s re c e i ve d , and the pa c ka ge wa s ope ne d shortly a fte r Gonz a le s arrive d . Othe r pa c ka ge s sim ila r to the subje c t pa c ka ge re c e n tly ha d be e n de live re d to, e .g., “ M y

B rothe r Dave ,” at the sa

m e de live ry

a ddre ss. This e vide nc e is suffic i e nt for a

rationa l juror to infe r the e xiste nc e of a n a gre e m e nt to distribute
m e tha m phe tam ine
. Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Due n as , 691 F.3d 1070, 1085–86 (9th C ir. 2012) (c onspira c y c onvic tion supporte d by

e vide nc e of la

rge qua ntity of
m e tha m phe tam ine and sta

t e m e n ts re fe re nc ing a dditiona l pa rtic ipa nts in distribution sc he m e ); Re e d , 575 F.3d a t 924 (c onspira c y c onvic tion supporte d by te stim ony re ga rding de fe nda

nt’ s involve m e nt in m

ultipledrug tra

nsa c tions). W ith re spe c t to Gonz a le s’ inte nt to distribute , the subje c t pa c ka ge c onta ine d 52 gra m s of 100% purem e t

ham phe tam ine , the e quiva le nt of $5,000 worth, or be twe e n 250–500 individua l dose s. In a ddition, the

following item s, a

m ong othe rs, we re found a

t the subje c t de live ry

a ddre ss: two fire arm s , am m unition, a ba llistic ve st, a nd a digita l sc a le . This e vide nc e is suffic i e nt for a rationa l juror to infe r Gonz a le s’ inte nt to distribute m e tha m phe tam ine
. Se e Unite d State s v . Sav inov ic h , 3845 F.2d 834, 838 (9th C ir. 1988) (“ Inte nt to distribute m ay be infe rre d from

the purity , pric e , and qua

ntity of the drug posse sse d.” ); Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 357 F.3d 980, 985 (9th C ir. 2004) (inte nt to distribute “ e vide nc e d by

the distribution pa ra phe rna lia ” ). 3. To support a

c onvic tion for posse ssion with inte nt to distribute , the gove rnm e nt m

ust prove (1) knowing posse ssion of a c ontrolle d substa

nc e with (2) inte nt to distribute

it to a n othe r pe rson. 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1). A posta l inspe c tor te stifie d tha

t the de l ive re d pa c ka ge c onta ine d a “ de te c ta ble am ount” of
m e tha m phe tam ine
. Se e21 U.S.C . § 841(b). And, a s note d a bove , the subje c t pa c ka ge c onta i ne d a

la rge qua ntity of 100% pure m e tha

m phe tam i ne , se e Sav inov i c h , 845 F.2d a

t 8 3 8, a n d e xte nsive distribution pa ra phe rna lia wa s found a

t the d e live ry

a ddre ss, se e J

ohnson , 357 F.3d a

t 985. Vie we d in thelight m ost favora ble to the prose c ution, a

rationa l juror c ould infe r from this e v ide nc e both knowing posse ssion a

nd inte nt to distribute
. Minc off , 574 F.3d a

t 1192. AFFIRM E D.

4