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. B R ANDON ALTON C ONLEY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10312

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00077-JAM -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 7, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : IKUTA, N.R . SM ITH, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . A jury c onvic te d Appe lla

nt B randon C onle y

of m anufa c turing a

t le a s t one hundre d m arijua

na pla nts unde r 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1) and posse s sing a fire arm in
c onne c tion with a

drug tra ffic king c rim e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 924(c )(1). The distric t 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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).c ourt se nte nc e d C o nle y to two c onse c utive five -y e ar te rm s. C onle y tim e ly
a ppe a le d. The distric t c ourt did not err in finding tha t C onle y wa s not in c u stody

for Miranda 1 purpose s whe n la w e nforc e m e nt a ge nts que stione d him in his front y ard be c a use the brie f, c a sua l e nc ounte r did not c re ate a “ polic e -dom inate d
atm osphe re .” Se e Unite d State s v . C raighe ad , 539 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th C i r. 2008) (listing fa c tors re le va

nt to whe t he r a suspe c t is in c ustody

in his home ). Though the a ge nts he l d the am

m unition from

C onle y ’ s ha

ndgun a nd told C onle y to sta

y in his front y ard while the y

spoke with a

nothe r suspe c t, the se re stric t ions on his fre e dom of m ove m e nt did not rise to a de fa c to a

rre st re quiring Miranda wa rnings. Se e Unite d State

s v . W oods , 720 F.2d 1022, 1029–30 (9th C i r. 1983) (holding tha t brie f que stioning during a n inve stiga

tory de te ntion wa s not c ustodia l). Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re t ion in de c l ining to re m ove juror
num be r two. W

he n de fe nse c ounse l pointe d out the juror’ s ha bit of c losing his
e y e s, the c ourt e xam ine d the juror on there c ord. Ha ving sa tisfie d itse lf tha

t the juror’ s la pse s la s te d only

a fe wse c onds, thec ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t the juror ha d not be e n sle e p ing wa s within its disc re tion. Se eUnite d State

s v . Springfie ld, 829 F.2d 860, 864 (9th C ir. 1987) (holding tha t the distric t c ourt did not a buse its

1 Miranda v . Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t a sle e ping juror did not m

iss substa ntia l te stim ony ). The e vide nc e , vie we d in thelight most fa vora ble to the Gove rnm e nt, wa s suffic i e nt to support C o nle y ’ s c onvic tion of posse ssing a fire arm in furthe ranc e of
a drug tra ffic king c rim e . B e c a u se C o nle y

did not c ha lle n ge the suffic ie n c y of the
e vide nc e a s to the posse ssion e l e m e nt be fore the distric t c ourt, we re vie wonly for pla i n e rror or a

m isc arria ge of justic e . S e eUnite d State

s v . Atk i nson , 990 F.2d 501, 502–03 (9th C ir. 1993) (e n ba nc ). No m i sc arria ge of justic e re sulte d from the jury ’ s c onc lusion tha

t C o n le y posse sse d the rifle or the shotgun, or both. The jury
c ould infe r that C onle y

e xe rc ise d c ontrol ove r the we a pons from

his c ode fe nda

nt’ s te stim ony tha t C onle y gave him pe rm ission to use

the m to prote c t the grow ope rat ion. Se e Unite d State s v . Espinosa , 827 F.2d 604, 614 & n.6 (9th C ir. 1987) (de fining c onstruc tive posse ssion). The distric t c ourt did not err in finding the e vide nc e suffic ie nt to support the

“ in furthe ranc e ” e le m e nt. The te stim ony produc e d at

tria l showe d

tha t Arm e nta
use d the we a pons in his role

of prote c ting the m arijua na from intrude rs, pe rm itting the j ury to c onc lude tha

t C onle y posse sse d the we a

p ons in furthe ranc e of a drug tra ffic king c rim e . Se e Unite d State s v . He c tor , 474 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th C i r. 2007) (sta ting thee le m e nts of theoffe nse de fine d in 18 U.S.C . § 924(c )(1)). La stly , the distric t c ourt did not pla i nly e rr in fa iling to instruct the jury tha t 3it m

u st a gre e una

nim o usly a s to whic h spe c ific fire a rm or fire arm s C o nle y posse s se d. Se eUnite d State s v . C hi Mak , 683 F.3d 1126, 1133 (9th C ir. 2012) (re vie w ing instruc tions for plain e rror whe re the de fe nda nt did not obje c t at tria l). Jury una n im ity a s to whic h of the two fire arm s C onle y posse sse d wa s not re quire d,
and the distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in fa iling to give

a spe c ific una

nim i ty instruc tion. Se e Ric hardson v . Unite d State s , 526 U.S. 813, 817 (1999) (noting tha t the j ury ne e d not a gre e a s to them e an s by whic h a n e le m e nt of the offe nse wa s satisfie d). The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D.

4