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. JULIO C ESAR

M OR ALES-B ELTR

AN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50409

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-03396-B EN-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

10, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , B YB E E, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s . Julio M o ra le s-B e ltra

n a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for im porta tion of m arijua

na , in viola tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291 a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
JUL 22 2013 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 did not a buse its disc re tion in a dm itting e vide nc e of M ora l e s-B e ltra

n’ s 2000 a

rre st for m arijua

na im porta tion. Eviden c e of a de fe nda n t’ s prior ba d a c t s m ay

be a dm itte d unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 404(b) if (1) the e vide nc e te nds to provea m ate ria l point; (2) the

prior a c t is not too
re m ote in tim e ; (3) the e v i de nc e is suffic i e nt to support a finding tha

t the de fe nda

nt
c om m itte d the othe r a c t; a

nd (4) the a c t is simila

r to the offe nse c ha

rge d. U nite d State s v . Bank s , 514 F.3d 959, 976 (9th C ir. 2008). W he re , a s he re , the e v ide nc e is offe re d to proveknowle dge , “ the prior a c t ne e d not be sim ila r to the c h arge d a c t a s long a s the prior a c t wa s one whic h would te nd to m ake the e xiste nc e of the de fe nda n t’ s knowle dge m o re proba ble tha n it would be

without the

e vide nc e .” Unite d State s v . Lozano , 623 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

c onc luding tha

t the
c irc um s ta nc e s surrounding M ora le s -B e ltra n’ s 2000 a

rre st we re sim ila

r to those unde rly ing the c h a

rge d offe nse . B oth tim e s, he atte m p te d to sm

uggle the sa

m e
am ount (a pproxim at e ly

forty pounds) of thesa

m e substa nc e (m arijua

na ) in the
sam e m ode of tra

nsporta tion (his vehic le ) through thesa m e port of e ntry

(Ota y M e s a ). It is of no mom e n t tha t the m arijua

na wa s hidde n in his vehic le ’ s bum pe r in 2000, where a s this time it wa s hidde n in his ve hic le ’ s ga s ta nk.

-2-W e re c ogniz e tha t the two inc ide nts a

re not c lose in tim e ; M ora le s-B e ltra n ’ s prior a rre st oc c urre d e le v e n y e ars prior to the c ha rge d offe nse . Howe ve r, “ whe re prior a c ts we re sim ila

r to thosec ha

rge d, pre v i ous de c isions ha ve uphe l d a dm ission of e vide nc e of a c ts up to twe lve y e ars old.” Unite d State s v . Smith , 282 F.3d 758, 769 (9th C i r. 2002) (quoting Unite d State s v . Rude , 88 F.3d 1538, 1550 (9th C ir. 1996)) (a lte ration omi tte d). He re , a s in Smith , be c a use the prior a c t

is “ sim ila

r to
and proba tive of the c ha

rge s” a ga inst M ora le s-B e l tran, its “ e le ve n y e a r vinta ge is not fa ta l.” Id .; se e also United State s v . Ross , 886 F.2d 264, 267 (9th C ir. 1989) (holding tha

t a c ts oc c urring thirte e n y e ars be fore the a c t s in theinsta nt c a se we re not too re m ote , give n the sim ila rity of the offe nse s). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

holding tha

t this e vide nc e wa s a d

m issibleunde r R ule 404(b). Evide nc e a dm i ssible unde r R ule 404(b) m ay

be e xc lude d if its proba

tive
va lue is substa

ntia lly outwe ighe d by the da

n ge r of unfa i r pre

j udic e . Unite d State

s
v . Flore s -Blanc o , 623 F.3d 912, 919 (9th C ir. 2010). He re , the dispute d e v ide nc e ha d signific ant proba

tive va lue with re spe c t to M ora le s-B e ltra n’ s knowle dge
. Se e Unite d State s v . Planc arte -Alv a re

z , 366 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th C ir. 2004). Furthe r, the d istric t c o urt m inim iz e d a ny da nge r of unfa ir pre

judic e by a dvising the jury

— on two sep arate oc c a sions— that e vide nc e of M ora le s-B e ltra n’ s 2000 a

rre st -3-c ould be use d only to e sta blish his inte

nt, m otive , opportunity , pre pa ration, pla

n, knowle dge , a

bse nc e of m ista

ke , or a b se nc e of a c c ide nt. Id
. ; se e also FloresBlanc o , 623 F.3d a

t 920. Admission of this e vide n c e the re fore did not run a foul of R ule 403. 2. Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re t ion by a dm itting e xpe rt te stim ony re ga rding there ta il a

nd whole sa le va lue of the m a rijua n a se iz e d from his truc k. First, a dm ission of this e vide nc e did not viola

t e Fe de ra l R

ule s of Evide nc e 402 a nd 403. As M ora le s-B e ltra n a c knowle dge s, the gove rnm e nt introduc e d
e vide nc e tha

t he tra n s porte d a

pproxim ate ly

$40,000 worth of marijua na a s support for its the ory

tha t M ora le s-B e ltra

n kne w the drugs we re c onc e a l e d in his veh ic le
. W e hav e re pe ate dly

found e vide nc e re ga

rding thestre e t va lue of ille ga l drugs
a dm issiblewhe re , a s he re , it wa s introduc e d to provea de fe nda nt’ s knowle dge
and/or inte nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Ogbue hi , 18 F.3d 807, 812 (9th C ir. 1994) (c ita tion omitte d) (“ DEA a ge n t s c an te stify a s to the stre e t va lue of na rc otic s, a nd
c ounse l c an

argue re a sona

ble infe re nc e s from

it.” ); Unite d State

s v . K e a rne y , 560 F.2d 1358, 1369 (9th C ir. 1977); Gay lor v
. Unite d State s , 426 F.2d 233, 235 (9th C ir. 1970) (finding tha

t “ e vide nc e [of the stre e t

va lue of c oc a ine ] wa s prope rly
a dm itte d a s re futing thepossibility that a stra nge r c o uld ha

ve pla c e d suc h a
va lua ble c argo in a

ve hic le in the hope tha

t the ve hic le c ould be followe d a nd the -4-c oc a ine late r re c ove re d in theUnite d Stat e s” ); Unite d State s v . He rnande z-Vale nzue l

a , 431 F.2d 707, 707 (9th C i r. 1970) (pe r c uriam ). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding this e vide nc e re le va nt a nd a dm issible un de r R

ule s 402 a

nd 403. M ora le s-B e ltra

n a lso a rgue s tha t the introduc tion of this evide nc e viola te d Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 704. Howe ve r, be c a u se the gove rnm e n t’ s witne ss did not “ draw the ultim at e infe re n c e or c onc l usion for thejury an d the ultim ate infe re n c e or c onc lusion doe s not ne c e ssa rily follow from the te s tim ony [,] ” Unite d State s v . Morale

s , 108 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th C ir. 1997) (e n ba nc ), a dm ission of this te stim ony did not viola

te R u l e 704(b). The re wa s the re fore no a buse of disc re tion. 3. La stly , M ora le s-B e ltra n c la im s tha

t the prose c utor c om

m i tte d
m isc o nduc t by sugge sting in c losing a rgum e nts (1) tha

t, give n the high va lue of the drugs, it wa s unlike ly

tha t som e one ran dom ly

pic ke d M ora le s-B e ltra

n’ s truc k to
sm uggle the drugs into the

Unite d State s; a

nd (2) tha t this sc e na

rio wa s a lso unlike ly be c a use , give n tha

t the drugs we re hidde n in a hidde n c om

p artm e nt in the ga s ta nk, whoe ve r put the drugs the re would ha ve fa c e d a

num be r of logistic a l hurdle s in re trie ving the m onc e M ora le s-B e ltra

n e nte re d the Unite d Stat e s. B e c a use M ora l e s-B e l tran fa ile d to ra ise this obje c tion a t tria l, we re vie w this
c la im for pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . W right , 625 F.3d 583, 610 (9th C ir. -5-2010). C ontra ry to wha t M ora le s-B e ltra

n a sse rts, the c ha l le nge d sta te m e nts did not invoke the sort of e xp e rt te stim ony re ga rding thestruc ture and m o dus ope randi of drug orga niz at ions we de e m e d

im pe rm issiblein Unite d State s v . Valle jo , 237 F.3d 1008 (9th C ir. 2001), ame nde d by 246 F.3d 1150 (9th C i r. 2001), a nd its progeny . Nor did theprose c utor’ s a rgum e nts re st on fa c ts not in ev ide nc e or im prope r vouc hing; ra

the r, the y we re ba se d on re a sona

ble infe re nc e s a s to M ora le s -B e ltra n ’ s knowle dge whic h we re drawn dire c tly from e vide nc e in the re c ord. Suc h sta te m e nts do not “ c ross the line of im proprie ty .” Unite d State

s v . He rmane k, 289 F.3d 1076, 1100 (9th C ir. 2002). Ac c o rdingly , we find tha t no e rror— le t a lone pla i n e rror— oc c urre d. AFFIRM E D.

-6-