T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. G I LBERT FLO RES, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 50431 D . C . N o. 3: 09 -c r- 04 42 6-B E N -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R oge rT . B e ni t e z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 5, 2013

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T R O T T , an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G ilb e r t F lo r e s ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n o f im p o r tin g m e th a m p h e ta m in e in to the U ni t ed S t at es . H e c hal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on s t o excl ud e e vi dence of hi s w e a l th a nd a dm i tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s e xpe r tw i tne s s t e s t i m ony on “ bl i nd mu l e s . ” W e a f

f i r m. 

# FI LED FEB 26 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

F l ores has notshow n thathe ever made an offerof proo f of w ea l th evi dence, and w i tho utany off

erof proo f, w e c anno tre vi ew the excl usi on of thatevi dence. See F e d . R . E v id . 1 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; U ni t e d Stat e s v . Mor lan , 7 5 6 F .2 d 1 4 4 2 , 1 4 4 7 ( 9 th C i r. 19 85 ). E ven i f he had m ade a n o ff erof proo f, he never obj ec t ed t o the di stri ct court ’ s dec i si on t o excl ud e w ea l th evi dence attri al , so w e c ou l d atm ostre vi ew th a t d e c is io n f

o rp la in e rr o r . U

n ite d S ta te s v . V

a le n z u e la , 4 9 5 F .3 d 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 3 0 ( 9 th C i r . 2007) . A ny e rr orw a s notpl a i n. T he di s tr i c tc our tr e l i e d on U ni t ed Stat es v. Mitc h e ll , w h e r e w e h e ld th a t e v id e n c e o f a d e f e n d a n t’s p o v e r ty w a s in a d m is s ib le to pr ove m ot i ve t o c om m i ta r obbe ry be c a us e i tw a s unf a i r l y pr e j udi c i a l . 172 F . 3d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 8

– 1 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . Mitc h e ll m a y notl e nd m uc h s uppor tt o e xc l udi ng e vi de nc e of

w e a l th be c a us e w e a l th e vi de nc e , unl i ke pove r ty e vi de nc e , doe s not e nt a i l the s a m e r i s k of

unf a i rpr e j udi c e t o a c r i m i na l de f e nda nt . E rr ori s notpl a i n, h o w ev er, “ w h ere th ere i s n o co n tro l l i n g au th o ri ty o n p o i n tan d w h ere th e m o st cl osel y a nal og ou s pre ce dentl ea ds t o con fl i ct i ng re sul t s. ” U n i t e d S ta t e s v . D e La Fu e n te , 353 F . 3d 766, 769 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . B e c a us e the r e i s no c ontr ol l i ng a uthor i ty on poi nt , a nd Mitc h e ll d o e s n o t m a k e c le a rw h e th e re v id e n c e o f w e a lth is i nadm i ss i bl e, the excl usi on w as no tpl ai n err or. W e a l s o a f

f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o a dm i te xpe r tt e s t i m ony on

“ bl i nd m ul e s . ” W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o a dm i te xpe r tt e s t i m ony f or3

ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n , U

n i t ed S ta t es v. C a ldero n -Seg u ra , 5 1 2 F .3 d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) , a s w e ll a s its e v id e n tia ry d e c is io n s . U ni t ed Stat es v. A lvarez , 358 F . 3d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in c onc l udi ng tha tthe bl i nd m ul e t e s t i m ony w a s pe r m i s s i bl e unde rF e de r a l R ul e s of E v id e n c e 7 0 2 a n d 7 0 4 . W e r e je c te d th e a r g u m e n t th a t th e s e ru le s p r o h ib ite d th is ty pe of t e s t i m ony i n U

n ite d S ta te s v . Mu r illo , 25 5 F . 3d 11 69 , 11 77 -78 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) , over rul ed on other groun ds as re cogn i ze d i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Mendez , 476 F .3 d 1 0 7 7 , 1 0 8 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . N o rd id th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in de t e r m i ni ng tha tthe t e s t i m ony w a s notundul y pr e j udi c i a l unde rF e de r a l R ul e of E vi dence 703 . T he evi dence w as prob at i ve i n l i gh tof F l ores ’ s theory thathe w as a n unknow i ng c our i e r , a nd i tw a s nots i gni f i c a nt l y m or e pr e

j udi c i a l tha n the t es t i m on y i n si m i l arca se s w here w e uph el d such t es t i m on y a gai nstatt ac ks un der R u le 7 0 3 . Se e , e . g. , U

n i t ed S ta t es v. Sep u lveda -B a rra za , 645 F . 3d 1066, 1072–73 ( 9th C i r . 2011) . F i na l l y , i tw a s nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on t o l i m i tque s t i ons on c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n o f

th e w itn e s s th a t c a lle d f o rin a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y . See In re H anf or d N uc l e arR e s e r v at i on L i t i

g. , 53 4 F . 3d 98 6, 10 12 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). A toral ar gu m ent , coun se l for the go vernm entac kn ow l edged thatevi dence tha tbl i nd m ul e s e xi s tc a m e t o the a tt e nt i on of hi s of f i c e a f t e rthi s tr i a l c a m e t o a c l os e . H e a l s o r e pr e s e nt e d tha t , t o hi s know l e dge , the of f i c e w a s no l onge rputt i ng4

on t e s t i m ony t o the e f

f e c ttha tbl i nd m ul e s do note xi s t . W e trus ttha tthe go vernm entw i l l no tsubm i texpertt es t i m on y thati tkn ow s i s i nacc urat e. AF F I RME D.