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 i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. LUIS C A RLOS VASQUEZ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 13-10439

D.C . No. 4:11-c r-02486-DC B
DTF-4
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na David C . B ury , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd TUNHEIM , * * C hie f Distric t Judge
. De fe nda

nt Luis C arlos Va sque z a

ppe a ls his c onvic tions following a jury tria l for c o nspiring to posse ss m arijua na with intent to distribute , posse ssing m arijua n a with inte nt to distribute , c onspiring to im port m a rijua n a , a nd im porting m a

rijua na , 

# FIL ED NOV 30 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble John R . Tunhe im , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M i nne sota , sitting by de signa tion.unde r 21 U.S.C . §§ 841, 846, 960, 963. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. For there a s ons tha t follow, wea ffirm

the c onvic tion, but vac at e the
se nte nc e , a

nd re m and for re se nte nc ing without the we a pon e nha n c e m e nt. I. As a pre lim ina

ry m atte r, we de ny

the gove rnm e nt’ s m otion to supple m e nt the re c ord on a

ppe a l to inc lude c ove r le tte rs, a m e m orandum subm itte d in-c am e ra , and a n e m a il be t

we e n the pa

rtie s. The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t the se doc um e nts a

re ne c e ssa ry to c om ple te the fa c t

u a l re c ord of c om

m unic ations be twe e n the pa rtie s. Unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of Appe lla

te Proc e dure 10(e )(2), the re c ord m ay be supple m e nte d by

m ate ria l tha

t “ is om itte d from

or m issta te d in the re c ord by

e rror or a c c ide n t.” The c o ve r le tte rs a nd c om m unic ations be twe e n the pa rtie s we re ne ve r a pa rt of the re c ord be fore the distric t c o urt, a n d thus do not fa

ll within the
c onfine s of this rule . No e xtra ordina ry c irc um s ta

nc e s c o unse l in fa

vor of
e xpa nding the re c ord for a

ny othe r re a son he re . Se e Low ry v . Barnhart , 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th C ir. 2003). II. W e re vie w Va sque z ’ s c ha lle n ge to the gove rnm e nt’ s de c i sion not to c a ll
c o-de fe nda

nt Vic tor Stuppi a s a

witne ss for pla i n e rror be c a use Va s que z did not obje c t at tria l
. Se e Unite d State s v . C abre ra , 201 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000).
2“ R e ve rsa l on this ba sis is justifie d only if it a ppe ars m ore proba

ble tha n not tha t prose c utoria l m isc onduc t m at e ria lly a ffe c te d the fa irne ss of the tria l.” Id. (quoting Unite d State s v . Say ak h om , 186 F.3d 928, 943 (9th C ir. 1999), ame nde d by 197 F.3d 959 (9th C ir. 1999)). Va sque z provide s no c a s e la w sugge s ting tha

t the gove rnm e nt c om

m its
m isc o nduc t by fa iling to c a l l a witne ss on its witne ss list. To the c ontra ry , c rim ina l de fe nda n ts ha ve no right to pre tria l disc losure of gove rnm e nt witne s se s , se e W e a the rford v
. Burse

y , 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977); Unite d State s v . J o n e s , 612 F.2d 453, 454 (9th C ir. 1979); it follows the n tha t whe n the gove rnm e nt opts to disc lose
a witne ss list, it is not re q

uire d to c a l l a ll witne sse s on thelist. Additiona lly , Va sque z ha s not shown tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s de c ision not to c a ll Stuppi mate ria l ly
a ffe c te d the fa irne ss of his trial be c a use he c ould ha

v e c a lle d Stuppi him se lf, but he
c hose n ot to. Thus, the

gove rnm e nt’ s de c ision not to c a ll Stuppi wa s not
m isc o nduc t m ate ria lly a ffe c ting thefa i rne ss of Va sque z ’ s tria l. Furthe rm ore , the de c ision not to c a ll Stuppi wa s not suppre s sion of
e xc ulpa tory e vide nc e or witne sse s unde r B rady 1 or Giglio 2 be c a use the gove rnm e nt’ s de c ision not to c a ll a witne ss is not “ suppre ssion” of e vide nc e . Se e

1 Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 Giglio v . Unite d State

s , 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

3Unite d

State s v . Bond, 552 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th C ir. 2009) (re je c t ing a rgum e nt that the gove rnm e nt “ suppre sse d” e vide nc e by fa iling to c a ll a

witne s s favora

ble to the d e fe nda

nt be c a use the de fe nda

nt wa s aware of the witne ss a n d c ould ha

ve c a lle d the witne ss him se lf, a

nd the gove rnm e nt’ s de c ision not to c a ll the witne ss wa s tria l stra

te gy ). III. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s disc ove ry ruling a n d de nia l of Va s que z ’ s
m otion to c ontinuefor a

buse of disc re tion. Se e Unite d State s v . W ilk e s , 662 F.3d 524, 543 (9th C ir. 2011) (de nia l of m otion to c ontinue ); Unite d State s v . Mitc he l l , 502 F.3d 931, 964 (9th C ir. 2007) (disc ove ry ruling). To the e xte nt Va sque z argue s tha

t the gove rnm e nt’ s a c tions a m o unte d to prose c utoria l m isc onduc t, he
m ust show hewa s de n ie d a fa ir tria l. U

nite d State

s v . C h ristophe , 833 F.2d 1296, 1300-01 (9th C ir. 1987). “ [R ] e ve rsa l is wa rrante d only

if it is mo re proba

ble tha n not tha t the m isc onduc t m ate ria lly a ffe c te d the ve rdic t.” Id. (c i tations omitte d). Va sque z ’ s c ha lle nge s ba se d on de la y e d disc ove ry

or disc losure fa il be c a

use Va sque z ha s not de m onstra te d an e sse ntia l e le m e nt of a Brady v iola tion— suppre ssion of e x c ulpa

tory or im pe a c hing e vide nc e . Se e U n ite d State

s v . Olse n , 704 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th C ir. 2013). W hile the gove rnm e nt disc lose d som e inform at ion shortly be fore the se c ond tria l, the gove rnm e nt disc lose d m uc h of the
4sam e e vide nc e prior to thefirst tria l , a nd the re is no indic ation tha t the gove rnm e nt ha d the ne we r inform at ion for a ny signific ant pe riod of tim e be fore disc losing it. Nor is the re any

indic at ion tha

t Va sque z wa s una

ble to use any

of the inform ation
at tria l. Se e Unite d State

s v . Vge ri , 51 F.3d 876, 880 (9th C ir. 1995) (finding no Brady viola tion whe re late -disc lose d inform ation wa s still use d during c rosse xam ination, a

nd thus, “ [t] he gove rnm e nt disc l ose d the inform ation a t a tim e whe n it wa s of va lue to [the de fe nda nt] ” ); Unite d State

s v . Gordon , 844 F.2d 1397, 1403 (9th C ir. 1988) (finding no Brady viola tion whe re the de fe nse re c e ive d the doc um e nts during the

tria l with e nough tim e to m ake use of the m , inc luding the opportunity

to re c a ll witne sse s). Furthe rm ore , re v e rsa l is wa rrante d only if a Brady or R

ule 16 viola

t ion
re sulte d in pre

judic e , a n d Va sque z ha s shown nonehe re . Se e Olse n , 704 F.3d a t 1181 ( Brady viola tion); Unite d State

s v . Figue roa-Lope

z , 125 F.3d 1241, 1247 (9th C ir. 1997) (R

ule 16 viola

tion). IV. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion to a dm it c o-de fe nda nt Ka rla Prie to’ s te stim ony re ga rding Jua n Tiz n a do’ s sta

t e m e nt unde r the c oc o nspira tor he arsay e xc lusion for a

buse of disc re tion a

nd the distric t c ourt’ s unde rly ing de te rm i nations that the sta te m e nt wa s m a de during a nd in furthe ranc e of the c o nspira c y for c le ar
5e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Moran , 493 F.3d 1002, 1010 (9th C ir. 2007). Unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 801(d)(2)(E), a sta te m e nt is not he arsay

if it “ wa s m a de by the pa rty ’ s c oc onspira

tor during a

nd in furthe ranc e of the c onspira c y .” The distric t c ourt did not err in finding the sta te m e nt oc c urre d during the
c onspira c y

be c a use e vide nc e sugge ste d tha t the c onspira c y

date d ba c k to be fore the 2011 sta te m e nt, with border c rossings oc c urring a s e arly a s 2010. It is le s s c le ar, howe v e r, tha

t the sta t e m e nt wa s m a de in furthe ranc e of the c onspira c y . At the tim e of the sta te m e nt, Prie to wa s a lre a dy a m e m be r of the c onspira c y . Prie to te stifie d that she fe lt m o re se c ure knowing tha t som e one at the borde r wa s working with the
m e m b e rs of the c onspira c y , but the re is no indic ation tha t Tizna do, Prie to’ s boy frie nd a

nd c oc onspira

tor, m a de the sta

te m e nt for tha

t pa rtic ula r purpose . Se e Unite d State s v . W illiams , 989 F.2d 1061, 1068 (9th C ir. 1993) (“ In de te rm ining whe the r a sta te m e nt is m a de ‘ in furthe ranc e of’ a c onspira c y , the c ourt looks to the de c la rant’ s inte nt in m aking thesta te m e nt, not thea c t

ua l e ffe c t of the sta

te m e nt.” (c ita tion omitte d)). Eve n if the distric t

c ourt c le arly

e rre d in finding the

sta te m e nt wa s m a de in furthe ran c e of the c o nspira c y , howe ve r, the e rror is “ ha rm le ss ‘ unle ss we have grav e doubt whe the r the e rrone ously a dm itte d e vide nc e substa ntia lly a ffe c te d the
ve rdic t.’ ” Unite d State

s v . Alv a re

z , 358 F.3d 1194, 1214 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting
6Unite d

State s v . Ellis , 147 F.3d 1131, 1134 (9th C ir. 1998)). Eve n without te stify ing a

bout Tizna do’ s sta

te m e nt, Prie t o c ould ha

ve te stifie d tha

t she kne w tha

t
som e one wa s working with the c onspira c y at the borde r, an d tha

t she sa w Tiz na do
sm iling or nodding a

t Va sque z in gre e ting, whic h like ly would ha ve c onve y e d a sim ila r m e ssa ge . Additionally , the de fe nse introduc e d signific ant im pe a c hm e nt
e vide nc e re ga

rding Prie to, whic h m ay have le sse n e d the im p a c t of he r te stim ony

a s
a whole . Thus, a

ny e rror in a dm itting Prie to’ s te s tim ony re ga rding Tizna do’ s sta te m e nt wa s ha

rm le ss be c a

use it did not substa

ntia lly a ffe c t the ve rdic t. V. B e c a use Va sque z ’ s c ounse l fa ile d to obje c t , we m ust de te rm ine whe t

he r the prose c utor’ s vouc h i ng c om m e nts during c losing a

rgum e nts a

m ounte d to pla in
e rror. Unite d State

s v . Smith , 962 F.2d 923, 933 (9th C ir. 1992). W e find tha t the prose c utor e nga ge d in im prope r vouc hing during c losing a rgum e nt s by
e nc oura g ing the jury to c onside r during the ir de libe rations whe the r the prose c utor would ha ve suborne d pe rjury , whic h he sta te d wa s a fe de ra l c rim e tha

t c o uld re sult in ja il tim e . Se e Unite d S t ate s v . W e athe rspoon , 410 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th C ir. 2005) (finding tha

t the prose c utor im

prope rly vouc he d by

sta t ing tha t the polic e offic e r witne sse s would risk losing their pe nsion a nd live lihood, a

nd c ould fa c e pe rjury c h arge s if the y

lie d be c a use it “urge d

tha t the e xiste nc e of le ga l a

nd
7profe s siona l re pe rc u ssions se rve d to e nsure the c re dibility of the offic e rs’ te stim ony ” ); Smith , 962 F.2d a t 933-35 (finding im

prope r vouc hing whe re “ [t] he
c um ulat ive e ffe c t of [the prose c utor’ s] sta te m e nts wa s to submit the prose c utor’ s pe rsona l c onvic tion of [thede fe nda nt’ s] guilt, togethe r with thegove rnm e nt’ s a s a whole , a s fa c tors for the jury to c onside r in its de l ibe rations a long with the a c tua l
e vide nc e ” ). In light of de fe nse c ounse l’ s strong sugge stion during c l osing a rgum e nts tha

t the g ove rnm e nt suborne d pe rjury , howe ve r, the prose c utor’ s vouc hing did not im plic at e the funda

m e nta l fa irne ss of the tria l, a nd the re fore , it wa s not re ve rsible pla i n e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Young , 470 U.S. 1, 11-16 (1985) (c onc luding tha t
vouc hing tha

t is a n “ invite d re sponse ” and doe s no m ore tha n “ right the sc a le ,” whe n c onside re d in c onte xt, doe s not a m ount to re ve rsible pla in e rror). Additionally , the vouc hing sta te m e nt did not im

plic ate the funda

m e nta l fa irne ss of the t ria l in light of the

de fe n se c ounse l’ s im

pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e re ga rding Prie to, the d istric t c o urt’ s ge ne ra l jury instruc tions a

bout a ttorne y argum e nts not be ing
e vide nc e , a

nd the signific ant c i rc um sta ntia l e vide nc e of Va sque z ’ s guilt. Se e Unite d State s v . N e c oe c he a , 986 F.2d 1273, 1280-81 (9th C i r. 1993) (finding no
re ve rsible pla in e rror whe re the re wa s a ge ne ra l jury instruc tion tha t attorne y s’
argum e nts we re not e vide nc e , the witne ss’ s “ c re dibility wa s forc e fully

c ha lle nge d
8at tria l,” and the re wa s “ signific ant c irc um sta ntia l e vide nc e c onne c ting” the de fe nda n t with thec rim e ). VI. C um ulative ly , the a

bove -disc usse d e rrors a

re not suffic ie ntly

pre j udic ia l to
re quire re ve rsa l. “ [W ] h ile a de fe nda nt is e ntitle d to a

fa ir tria l, he is not e ntitle d to
a pe rfe c t tria l , ‘ for the re are no pe rfe c t tria l s.’ ” Unite d State s v . Pay ne , 944 F.2d 1458, 1477 (9th C ir. 1991) (quoting Brow n v . Unite d State s , 411 U.S. 223, 231-32 (1973)). The re is signific ant c i rc um sta ntia l e vide nc e tha

t Va sque z wa s involve d in the d rug c onspira c y , a

nd he ha s not shown how a ny of the se a lle g e d e rrors, individually

or c um ulative ly , c ould ha

ve c h ange d the ve rdic t in this c a se . VII. The distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l finding supporting a 2-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt for obstruc tion of justic e unde r U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 is re vie we d for c l e ar e rror. S e e Unite d State s v . J i me n e z , 300 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th C ir. 2002). To support a n obstruc tion of justic e se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt the distric t c ourt m ust m ake thre e findings: “ (1) the de fe nda nt ga ve fa lse te stim ony , (2) on a m ate ria l m atte r, (3) with willful intent.” U

nite d State

s v . C astro-Ponc e , 770 F.3d 819, 822 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Garro , 517 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th C i r. 2008)). He re , the distric t c o urt found tha

t V a sque z c om

m itte d pe rjury whe n he te s tifie d at both of his
9tria l s, a

nd the c ourt m a de a ll thre e ne c e ssa ry findings, sta

ting “ that [Va sque z ’ s] te stim ony wa s fa lse , tha

t it wa s m ate ria l to theissue s, [a nd] tha t it wa s willful.” C ontra ry to Va sque z ’ s c onte ntion, noneof the c a se s c ite d re q u ire tha t the distric t
c ourt ide ntify

spe c ific insta

nc e s of fa lse te stim ony . Se eid. ; Unite d State s v . Ac una , 9 F.3d 1442, 1445 (9th C ir. 1993) (“ [A] distric t c o urt is not re quire d to e n um e rat e spe c ific a lly

whic h portions of a

de fe nda nt’ s te stim ony

are fa lse to justify

an e nha nc e m e nt for obstruc tion of justic e .” (c ita tion omitte d)). Thus, thedistric t
c ourt did not c le arly

e rr in a pply ing a se nte nc ing e nha

nc e m e nt for obstruc tion of justic e be c a

use it m a d e a ll thre e re quire d findings. VIII. B e c a use Va sque z did not obje c t to theim position of a

we a pons e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), were vie w for pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Lindse y , 634 F.3d 541, 555 (9th C ir. 2011). B e c a use Va sque z posse sse d a

we a pon during thec rim e due to his position as a C u stom s and B orde r Patrol Offic e r, the
e nha nc e m e nt a

pplie s “ unle ss it is c le arly im proba ble tha t the we a pon wa s c onne c te d with theoffe nse .” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, n.11(A) (2012). The distric t c ourt
re c o gniz e d tha

t the we a pon wa s not c onne c te d to theoffe nse whe n de ny i ng the probat ion offic e r’ s re c om m e ndation to a

pply the we a pons e nha

nc e m e nt with

10re ga

rd to Va sque z ’ s c oc o nspira tors, but a pplie d the se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt without e xpla

nation during Va sque z ’ s se nte n c i ng he aring. Apply ing the we a

pons e nha

nc e m e nt for posse s sion of a se rvic e we a

pon during thec om

m ission of a

c rim e m ay

be wa rrante d whe re the we a

pon provide d
a dditional se c urity

or whe re the re wa s som e like lihood tha t the we a pon would be
use d during theoffe nse . Se e

, e . g., Unite d State

s v . Marmole

jo , 106 F.3d 1213, 1216 (5th C ir. 1997) (a

pply i ng the we a

pons e nha

nc e m e nt whe re arm e d INS offic e r transporte d drugs, a c ting a s a n “ arm e d gua

rd” ); Unite d State

s v . Ruiz , 905 F.2d 499, 507-08 (1st C ir. 1990) (a pply ing the we a

pons e nha

n c e m e nt whe re a

polic e offic e r’ s se rvic e we a

pon “ instille d c onfide nc e in thosewho re lie d upon him for prote c tion in e xc ha

nge for drugs, a

nd fe ar in those who de a lt with his supplie rs” ). He re , howe ve r, Va sque z ’ s involve m e nt in the offe nse wa s lim ite d to
a llowing vehic le s to pa ss through his ch e c kpoint without se arc hing for c ontra ba nd; the re is no indic ation tha

t the pre se n c e of Va s que z ’ s we a pon ha d any im pa c t on the offe nse or tha

t Va s que z pre se nte d a

risk of using the

we a pon in c onne c tion with the o ffe nse of c onvic tion unde r any c irc um sta

nc e s . Thus, the distric t c ourt pla inly
e rre d in im

posing the2-le ve l we a

pons e nha

n c e m e nt. W e va c ate Va sque z ’ s se nte nc e and re m and for re s e nte nc ing without the e nha nc e m e nt. IX.
11Se nte nc ing re duc tions dueto re duc e d ba se offe nse le ve ls for drug offe nse s

a fte r Am e ndm e nt 782 a

re ty pic a lly sought by

bringing a

pe tition under 18 U.S.C
. § 3582(c )(2), ra t

he r tha n by re m an d a fte r dire c t a

ppe a l. Se e Unite d State

s v . Boyk in , 785 F.3d 1352, 1364 n.9 (9th C i r. 2015). B e c a u se re m and is wa

rrante d on
anothe r ground, howe ve r, the distric t c ourt m ay c onside r any

c ha nge in ba se offe nse le ve l due t o Am e ndm e nt 782 a t Va sque z ’ s re se nte nc ing. X. This is not a

n “ unusua l c a se [] ” tha

t satisfie s one of the “ e xtra ordina ry e xc e ptions”to the ty

p ic a l proc e dure tha

t c la im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l
are ra ise d in c olla

te ra l proc e e dings ra

t he r tha n dire c t a ppe a l, U nite d State

s v . J e ronimo , 398 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th C ir. 2005), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Unite d State s v . J a c obo C astillo , 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ), and thus, we will de c line to he ar Va sque z ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im s. AFFIRM E D in par t; V ACAT E D in par t; and RE M ANDE D forr e s e nte nc ing.

12