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. HEC TOR DAVID LOPEZ-B ANUELOS, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10056

D.C . No. 5:13-c r-00619-EJD-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 Edwa rd J. Da vila , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

6, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd GAR B IS, ** Se n ior Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED AUG 04 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The Honora

ble M arvin J. Ga

rbis, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M a

ry la nd, sitting by

de signa tion.He c tor Da vid Lope z -B anue los, whileon proba t ion, wa s subje c te d

to a le ga l
se arc h at his hom e , whe re drugs, drug pa ra phe rna lia , a

loa d e d fire arm , a

nd
am m unition we re found. At trial, a jury found him

guilty on four c ounts of drug
and fire arm

viola tions. Lope z -B anue los a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

n d se nte nc e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. Lope z -B anue los a sse rts tha t his Sixth Ame ndm e nt rights were viola te d whe n the d istric t c o urt re fuse d to c o m pe l the gove rnm e nt to gra nt use im m unity to his wife during thesuppre s sion he aring. A viola tion of theSixth Am e ndm e nt right to
m ake a de fe nse is re vie we d de novo. Unite d State s v . Ste v e r , 603 F.3d 747, 752 (9th C ir. 2010). W

h e the r a distric t c ourt e rre d by

re fusing to c om

pe l the gove rnm e nt to gra

nt im m unity to a de fe nse witne ss is a

m ixe d que stion of la

w a nd fa c t re v ie we d de novo, a

nd the unde rly i ng fa c tua l findings a re re vie we d for c le ar
e rror. Unite d State

s v . W ilk e s , 662 F.3d 524, 532 (9th C ir. 2011). The e xe c utive bran c h ha s the sole a uthority and disc re tion to gra

nt im m unity to a prospe c t ive de fe nse witne ss. Unite d State s v . Straub , 538 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th C ir. 2008). In Straub , we c la rifie d the te st for de te rm ining whe n due proc e ss
re quire s tha

t the distric t c ourt c om

pe l use im

m unity : [T] he de fe nda

nt m ust show tha

t: (1) the de fe nse witne ss’ s te stim ony

wa s re le va

nt; a nd (2) e ithe r (a ) the prose c ution intentiona lly

c a use d the de fe nse witne ss to
2invoke the Fifth Am e ndm e nt right a ga inst se lf-inc rim i nation with the purpose of distorting the fa c t-finding proc e s s; or (b) the prose c ution gra nte d im m unity to a gove rnm e nt witne ss in orde r to obta in tha t witne ss’ s te stim ony , but de nie d im m unity to a de fe nse witne ss whosete stim ony

would ha ve dire c tly c ontra d ic te d tha

t of the gove rnm e nt witne ss, with the e ffe c t of so distorting the

fa c t-finding proc e ss tha

t the de fe nda nt wa s de nie d his dueproc e ss right to a funda m e nta lly fa ir tria l. Id. at 1162. Lope z -B anue los ha s not provide d a proffe r of the te stim ony

he wishe d to have im m uniz e d a nd, the re fore , ha s not shown tha t the te stim ony

wa s re le va

nt. Eve n a ssum ing tha

t the te stim ony

would ha ve be e n re le va nt a n d supportiveof the de fe nse on the suppre ssion issue , Lope z -B anue los ha s not shown a viola tion of his C onstitutiona

l rights. There ha s be e n no showing tha t the gove rnm e nt inte ntiona lly

c a use d the witne ss to invoke the Fifth Am e n dm e nt or se le c tive ly de nie d im m unity . Nor ha s the re be e n a showing of a

ny e xtra ordina

ry
c irc um s ta nc e s ra ising fa irne ss c onc e rns re ga rding theprose c ution’ s e xe rc ise of disc re tion. Lope z -B anue los c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in its sta te m e nt of the
c a se provide d at the c om

m e nc e m e nt of voir dire . Sinc e tria l c ounse l did not ra ise the s e obje c tions to the

distric t c ourt’ s sta

te m e nt, we re vie w the m atte r for pla in

3e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Mitc he ll , 502 F.3d 931, 955 (9th C ir. 2007). Howe ve r,
we find no e rror. The distric t c ourt did not inform the pote ntia l jurors of a

ny pre j udic i a l inform at ion, c

f. Sc ott v . Law re nc e , 36 F.3d 871, 874 (9th C ir. 1994),
and prope rly

instruc te d

the se le c te d jury

tha t it m ust ultimat e ly

de c ide a ll que stions of fa c t, se e Unite d

State s v . Sanc he

z-Lope z , 879 F.2d 541, 553 (9th C ir. 1989). Fina lly , Lope z -B a

nue los c onte nds tha

t the jury instruc t ions we re ina de quate to e n a ble him to pre se nt his the ory

of de fe n se . “ W e re vie w whe the r a tria l c ourt’ s instruc tions a de quat e ly

c ove re d a de fe nda

nt’ s proffe re d

de fe nse de novo, a

nd
re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s form ulation of jury

instruc t ions for a

n a buse of disc re tion.” Unite d State s v . Morse tte , 622 F.3d 1200, 1201 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ) (quotingUnite d State

s v . C h a stain , 84 F.3d 321, 323 (9th C ir. 1996)). The instruc tion give n wa s c onsiste nt with binding pre c e d e nt on posse ssion of a fire arm in furthe ranc e of a

drug tra ffic king offe nse and a de quate l y c ove re d the e le m e nts of the o ffe nse . Pe rha

ps the instruc tion c ould ha ve be e n im

p rove d by providing furthe r de finition of “ in furthe ranc e ,” using wording from the de fe nse instruc tion. Howe ve r, “ [t] he tria l c o urt ha s substa ntia l la titudeso long a s its instruc t ions fa irly
and a de quate ly

c ove r the issue s pre se nte d.” Unite d State s v . Hic k s , 217 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th C ir. 2000) (c ita tion omitte d). Lope z -B a

n ue los “ is not e ntitle d to a

n instruc tion with wording of his own c hoosing.” Unite d State

s v . Hofus , 598 F.3d
41171, 1174 (9th C ir. 2010) (c ita tion omitte d). The tria l c ourt instruc tion did not inte rfe re with thea

b ility of Lope z - B anue los to pre se nt his the ory of the c a se , a

nd the re wa s am

ple e vide nc e for the jury

to c o nvic t. AFFIRM E D.

5