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 intiff - Appe lle e ,
v. M AR C O ANTONIO C AB ALLER O

PER EZ, AKA Antonio C a ba lle ro-Pe re z , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10489

D.C . No. 2:13-C R -00085-JADPAL-2

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Je nnife r A. Dorse y , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 9, 2016 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, W . FLETC HER , a nd M UR G UIA, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nt M a rc o C a

ba lle ro-Pe re z (“ C a

ba l le ro” ) a

ppe a ls his jury t

r i a l c o n vic tion for distribution of m

e tha m phe ta m ine . W e a ffirm

. 

# F IL ED

F EB 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iat e f o r p ub l i c a t 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.
** T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d e s t h i s c a s e i s s u i t a b l e f o r d e c i s i o n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C a

ba lle ro did not obje c t a t tria l to the jury instruc tions for the c ount of

c onvic tion 1 a nd thus the i nstruc tion is re vie we d for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Doe , 705 F.3d 1134, 1143 (9th C i r. 2013). C a ba lle ro be a rs t

he burde n of e sta

blishing tha t

a n obvious or pla in e rror a ffe c te d his substa nt i al r i g hts a n d se riously a ffe c ts the fa irne s s, inte grity or public re puta tion of t h e judic ia l proc e e dings. Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993). The distric t c ourt ga v e the Ninth C irc uit M ode l J ury Instruc tions for distribution of m e tha m p he ta m ine a nd knowle dge , a nd the se instruc tions c orre c tly sta te d the la w. S ee Un it ed S tate

s v . Houston , 406 F.3d 1121, 1122 (9th C i r. 2005). C a ba lle ro c ite s

no a uthority to support his c onte ntion tha t e ithe r of the s e instruc t ions we re e rrone ous

or t h a t the y som e how pe rm itte d the j ury t o c onvic t b a se d on “ m e re pre se nc e ” a n d without inte nt. Inde e d, the jury wa s spe c ific a lly instruc te d tha t pre s e nc e a t the sc e ne of a c rim e w a s insuffic ie nt. T he j ury wa s not re quire d t o f i n d “ i nte nt to distribute ,”

a s it wa s in the othe r c ha rge d c o u n t s , be c a

use the c ount of whic h C a ba lle ro wa s

c onvic te d a lle ge d

a n a c tua l distribution oc c urre d. The re wa s no pla in e rror.

1 Inde e d, C a

ba lle ro’ s c ounse l ora l ly

ra tifie d the propose d

“ joint instruc tions,” a nd thus m a y ha ve wa i ve d the issue e ntire ly

. Unite d S tate s v . C ain , 130 F.3d 381, 383-84 (9th C ir. 1997). W e ne e d not de c i de t his issue be c a

use we c onc lude tha t, e v e n a ssum ing the obje c tion wa s not wa ive d , the re wa s no pla i n e rror. 2Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re tion by a dm i tting ev id en c e of C a ba lle ro’ s p rior c onvic tion. T he prior c onvic tion wa s v e ry sim ila r to two c ha

rge d

c ounts be c a

use m e tha

m phe ta m i ne wa s found in a hidde n c o m par t m e nt of a ve hic le

. This wa s re le va

n t t o r e b ut C a

ba lle ro’ s de fe n se tha t he ha d no knowle dge of the

c onc e a l e d na

rc otic s a nd wa s m e re ly pre se nt in the v e hic le

. S e e Unite d State

s v . Bank s , 514 F.3d 959, 976 (9th C ir. 2008) (prior ba d a c t e vide nc e a dm issible if not

ove rly re m ote , te n ds to prove a m a te ria l point, s ha re s sim ila ritie s to the c ha

rge d offe nse , a nd is ba se d o n su ffic ie nt e vide nc e ). The distric t c ourt provide d a prope r lim iting instruc tion to tha t e nd. In a ny e ve nt , ev en if th e c ourt e rre d , a ny e rror in

a dm itting the e v ide n c e w a s h a rm le ss be c a use the j ury did not c onvic t C a ba l le ro of o ne of the c ounts involving the c onc eal ed m e tha m phe t a m ine , a

n d thus a d

m ission of the

e vide nc e did n o t pr e

j udic ia lly im

pa c t the outc om e . Se e Unite d State s v . Ramire

zRoble s , 386 F.3d 1234, 1244 (9th C ir. 2004). AFFIRM E D.

3