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 and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th 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. F R AN C I S C O K E L L Y- P AL ME R , AK A E nri qu e A yon-C ort ez , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 50554 D . C . N o. 3: 08 -c r- 00 28 3-IE G -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 I rm aE . G onz a l e z , C hi e f 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 D e c e m be r8, 2009

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

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , N O O N A N an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F ranci sc o K el l y- P al m er(“ K el l y- P al m er ”) appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on un der 8 U. S . C . § 1 3 2 6 . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . We r e v i e w de no vo w h e th e rth e r e h a s b e e n av io la tio n o f aD e f e n d a n t’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to p r e s e n t ad e f

e n s e a n d F if

th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to d u e p r o c e s s . U ni ted Stat es v. 

# FI LED JAN 04 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS-2-

B aham onde , 44 5 F . 3d 12 25 , 12 28 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). W e s t at e the fa ct s onl y a s n e c e s s a ryto e x p la in o u rd e c is io n a n d w e a f f irm . F i rst , th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tv i o l at e K el l y-P al m er’ s co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s b yp r e c lu d in g K e lly - P a lm e rf r o m te s tif

y in g ab o u t w h a t h is g r a n d f a th e rto ldh im ab o u t h is p la c e o f

b irth . W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n n o t to a d m it e v id e n c e u n d e rah e a r s a ye x c e p tio n f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni te d State s v . Y

i da , 498 F . 3d 945, 949 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on w hen i tfoun d thatsuch t es t i m on y by K el l y- P al m erw as i nadm i ss i bl e hears ay w h ic h d id n o t f

a ll u n d e ra n yo f

th e e x c e p tio n s to th e h e a r s a yru le . U ni ted Stat es v. R ahm , 9 9 3 F .2 d 1 4 0 5 , 1 4 1 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . M o r e o v e r , th e e x c lu s io n o f th is he a r s a yt e s t i m onydi d notvi ol a t e K e l l y - P a l m e r ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s , be c aus e the t es t i m on y di d n otbear“ pers uasi ve as surances of trustw orthi ness . ” Chi a v. Ca m b ra , 3 6 0 F .3 d 9 9 7 , 1 0 0 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ; s e e al s o Cham be rs v . Mis s is s i ppi , 4 1 0 U .S . 2 8 4 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . S e c o n d , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t v io la te K e lly - P a lm e r ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts w hen i texcl ud ed K el l y- P al m er ’ s e xp ertw i tness t es t i m on y. W e r evi ew a di stri ct c o u rt’s d e c is io n to a d m it e x p e rt te s tim o n yf o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v. B ahe na- Carde nas , 411 F . 3d 1067, 1078 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . E xpe rte vi de nc e m us tbe b o th r e le v a n t a n d r e liab le . D au bert v. Merre l l

D ow P ha rm s. , Inc. , 509 U . S . 579,-3-

59 7 (19 93 ). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n fi nd i ng the expert te s tim o n yu n r e liab le . U l t i m at el y, th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s tw o ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g s d i d n o tv i o l at e K el l yP a l m e r ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s be c aus e the ydi d notpr e ve ntK e l l y - P a l m e rf r om p r e s e n tin g h is a f

f irm a tiv e d e f

e n s e th a t h e is aU .S . c itiz e n . U ni ted Stat es v. Schef f er , 5 2 3 U .S . 3 0 3 , 3 1 7 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. Ki ncai d-Cha un ce y , 556 F . 3d 9 2 3 , 9 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . W e th e r e f o r e a f f irm . A FFI R M ED .