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 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. M I GU EL AN GEL J I M ENEZ , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30265 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c r- 00 34 3-JL R -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

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. N I V A LD O RI A SCO S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30282 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c r- 00 34 3-JL R -5

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. N o. 11- 30283 D . C . N o. 2: 11 -c r- 00 23 3-JL R -1



# FI LED MA Y17 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

N I V A LD O RI A SCO S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n 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. HE C T ORF AB I O Z AP AT A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 30028 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c r- 00 34 3-JL R -3

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J a m e s L . R oba rt , 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 M a r c h 6, 2013 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , W . F L E T C H E R , an d R A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A ju ry c o n v ic te d D e f

e n d a n ts R ia s c o s , Z ap a ta , a n d J im e n e z o f c o n s p ir a c yto i m portac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 95 2(a) , 96 0(b)(1)(B)(i ), and 9 63 , and con spi ra cyt o d i stri bu t e acontrol l ed subst ance i n the U ni t ed S t at es i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), 84 1(b)(1)(A ), and 8 46 . T he j ury a l so foun d D ef endantJi m enez gu i l ty of c on spi ra cyt o l aund er3

m on eyi n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 19 56 (a )( 2)(A ) and 19 56 (h), and m on ey lau n d e r in g in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 9 5 6 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) a n d 2 . T h e d e f e n d a n ts appe a l the i rc onvi c t i ons , a nd D e f e nda ntZ apa t aappe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d w e l ar g e l ya f f i rm. 1. S u ff

i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce T he defendant s c l ai m there w as i nsuffi ci entevi dence t o con vi ct . W e r evi ew th e s e c la im s d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . G a r c ia , 49 7 F . 3d 96 4, 96 6-67 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) . B e c au s e D e f

e n d a n t J im e n e z d id n o t p r o p e r lyp r e s e rv e th is o b je c tio n w ith r e s p e c t to h is m o n e y lau n d e r in g c h a r g e s , w e r e v ie w th a t c la im f o rp la in e rr o r . U ni ted Stat es v. E riks en , 639 F . 3d 1138, 1148 ( 9th C i r . 2011) . W he n r e vi e w i ng a s uf f i c i e nc y c l a i m , w e m us t“ vi e w the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the pr os e c ut i on t o de t e rm i ne w he the r‘ the j uryr e a s onabl yc oul d ha ve f ound the defe nd antgu i l ty bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ’ ” G ar c i a, 497 F . 3d a t967 ( quot i ng U ni te d State s v . L othi an, 97 6 F . 2d 12 57 , 12 61 (9th C i r. 19 92 )) . W e hol d tha tthe gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha tthe de f e nda nt s i nt e nde d t o i m porta nd di s tr i but e c oc a i ne i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he gove rnm e ntpr ovi de d e vi de nc e of the c ons pi r a c yi t s e l f

, drug tr a f

f i c ki ng r out e s a nd p r a c tic e s , a n d th e im p o rta n c e o f d is tr ib u tio n in th e U n ite d S ta te s in o r d e rto p r o f it f r om the ve ntur e . T he j ury a l s o he a r d e vi de nc e tha ta tl e a s tone c ons pi r a t or4

a c k n o w le d g e d th e f

in a l d e s tin a tio n . B e c au s e th e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to supp ortthe conspi ra cyt o d i stri bu t e c ou nt s, there w as suff i ci entevi dence t o sup po rt J im e n e z ’s c o n s p ir a c y to lau n d e rm o n e yc o u n t a n d m o n e ylau n d e r in g c o u n ts . W e th erefo re h o l d th ere w as su ffi ci en tev i d en ce t o su p p o rtth e co n v i ct i o n s. 2 . Ex pe r t Te s t i m o ny D ef endantZ apat a c hal l enged b oth the adequacy of the expertdi sc l osures a n d th e s u b s ta n c e o f

th e e x p e rt te s tim o n yp r o v id e d b yth r e e D E A a g e n ts . a. R ul e 16 D i sc l osures Z apa t ac l a i m s the s um m a r i e s of the e xpe rt s ’ t e s t i m ony w e r e i ns uf f i c i e nt un der F eder al Rul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 16 . B ec ause no defe nd antobj ec t ed at tr i a l t o the a de qua c y of

the di s c l os ur e s , w e r e vi e w f orpl a i n e rr or . W e hol d tha tthe d is c lo s u r e s w e r e s u f

f ic ie n t to c o n v e yth e m in im a l n o tic e r e q u ir e d b yR u le 1 6 . b. I m pr ope r O pi ni on Z apa t aa l s o a r gue s tha tthe e xpe rt s i m pr ope r l yopi ne d on the i nt e ntof the de f e nda nt s i n vi ol a t i on of

F e de r a l R ul e of

E vi de nc e 704( b) . T he pa rt i e s di s put e the st andard of revi ew , bu tw e hol d thatthe ar gu m ent s f ai l i f r evi ew ed for e i ther an ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n o rp la in e rr o r . T he e xpe rt s i n thi s c a s e di d nott e s t i f yt o the i nt e ntorknow l e dge of the pa rt i c ul a rde f

e nda nt s . T he e xpe rt s di s c us s e d ge ne r a l tr a f f i c ki ng r out e s , c ontr ol of5

the r e l e va ntr e gi ons a tthe r e l e va ntt i m e s , a nd the l i ke l yde s t i na t i on of as hi pm e nt of the r e l e va nts i z e de pa rt i ng f r om the r e l e va ntpoi nta tthe r e l e va ntt i m e . T he e xpe rt s t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe y ha d no pe r s ona l know l e dge of the f a c t s of thi s c a s e , a nd th e irg e n e r a liz e dte s tim o n y p r o v id e d ap p r o p r ia te m o d u s o p e r a n d i te s tim o n y . See U ni te d State s v . Fr e e m an , 4 9 8 F .3 d 8 9 3 , 9 0 6 - 0 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. Y ou ng er , 398 F . 3d 1179, 1190 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . T he e xpe rtt e s t i m ony di d not r e q u ir e th e ju ry to f

in d ac e rta in m e n ta l s ta te if th e ju ryc r e d ite d th e e x p e rts . See U ni ted Stat es v. G on zales , 30 7 F . 3d 90 6, 91 1-12 (9th C i r. 20 02 ); U ni ted Stat es v. Moral es , 108 F . 3d 1031, 1038 ( 9th C i r . 1997) . W e thus hol d the r e w a s no abus e of d i scret i o n o r p l ai n erro r i n p erm i tt i n g th e t est i m o n y. 3. Vo l unt a r i ne s s o f C us t o di a lSt a t e m e nt D e f e n d a n t J im e n e z c h a lle n g e s th e a d m is s io n o f te s tim o n yb a s e d o n h is i nadm i ss i bl e c ust od i al st at em ent . D ef endantJi m enez cl ai m s the st at em entw as i nv ol un t ary, and so i nadm i ss i bl e f or any purpo se . W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ct c ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tas t a t e m e ntw a s vol unt a ry , butr e vi e w f a c tua l f i ndi ngs f o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni te d State s v . H

as w ood , 3 5 0 F .3 d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 2 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e h o ldth at th e g o v ern m en t m et it s b u rd en to p ro v e th at Jim en ez ’s s ta te m e n t w a s v o lu n ta ry . I t w a s n o t c le ar lye rr o n e o u s f o rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt to c r e d it the D E A a ge nt ’ s t e s t i m ony ove rJ i m e ne z ’ s . T he r e w a s no phy s i c a l c oe r c i on, a nd6

the r e i s no e vi de nc e of

i m pe rm i s s i bl e thr e a t s ori m pr ope rpr om i s e s bythe g o v e rn m e n t. W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t J im e n e z ’s u ltim a te r e f u s a l to c o o p e r a te s u g g e s ts th a t th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s d id n o t a c tu a llyc o m p e l h is s ta te m e n t. Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . B a u tis ta , 362 F . 3d 584, 592- 93 ( 9th C i r . 2004) . 4 . Te s t i m o ny Ba s e d o n t he I na dm i s s i bl e C us t o di a lSt a t e m e nt T he defendant s c hal l enge the di stri ctcourt ’ s a dm i ss i on of t es t i m on y that re li ed o n in fo rm atio n a D E A ag en t rec eiv ed fr o m D ef en d an t Jim en ez ’s i na dm i s s i bl e s t a t e m e nt . T he di s tr i c tc ourta dm i tt e d the t e s t i m ony onl yt o r e but a tta c k s m a d e b y d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l o n th e c a s e a g e n t’s in v e s tig a tio n a n d d ilig e n c e . T h e c o u rt s p e c if

ic a llyin s tru c te d th e ju ryn o t to c o n s id e rth e e v id e n c e f o rth e tru th o f th e m a tte ra s s e rte d . T h e a g e n t d id n o t a ttr ib u te th e e v id e n c e to a n yd e f e n d a n t, no r di d h e s t at e the basi s f or hi s kno w l edge. W e f ir s t h o ld th a t th e r e w a s n o e rr o ru n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 3 . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n adm i tt i ng the t es t i m on y, the court offe re d an adequ at e l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on , and the re cord show s the courtcond uct ed as u f f ic ie n t b a la n c in g . W e a l s o hol d tha tthe a dm i s s i on of the t e s t i m ony di d noti nf r i nge on a ny de f e nda nt ’ s r i ght s unde rthe C onf r ont a t i on C l aus e . T hi s c ourtr e vi e w s de novo c la im s o f C o n f r o n ta tio n C lau s e v io la tio n s . U n i ted S ta tes v. B erry , 683 F . 3d 1015,7

10 20 (9th C i r. 20 12 ). T he C on fr on t at i on C l ause do es no tbar t es t i m on i al s ta te m e n ts th a t a r e n o t o f f e r e d to e s tab lis h th e tru th o f th e m a tte ra s s e rte d . See Cr aw f ord v . W as hi ngton , 54 1 U . S . 36 , 59 n. 9 (20 04 ); T enness ee v. Stre et , 4 7 1 U . S. 40 9, 41 4 (19 85 ). T he t es t i m on y i n thi s c as e w as no toffe re d for i t s truth, bu tra ther a s r e b u tta l o f

a n in f e r e n c e th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d n o t b e e n d ilig e n t in its i nve s t i ga t i on. T he r e i s no e vi de nc e tha tthi s r a t i ona l e w a s pr e t e xtua l , ortha tthe s c o p e o f th e te s tim o n y s tr a y e d b e y o n d its lim ite d p u rp o s e . C om pa re U ni ted Stat es v. N gu ye n , 565 F . 3d 668, 674 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( f i ndi ng as t a t e m e ntw a s of f e r e d f or the truth w here i t s s cope w as cl earl y broaderthan the cl ai m ed no n-hears ay j ust i fi ca t i on ). W e hol d thatthere w as no error. 5. G u i l ty P l ea S tate m en ts D e f e nda ntR i a s c os c l a i m s i tw a s e rr ort o a dm i ts t a t e m e nt s he m a de pur s ua nt t o a 20 01 gu i l ty pl ea . H e c l ai m s the st at em ent s w er e i nadm i ss i bl e und erF eder al R ul e of E vi de nc e 410. T he s t a t e m e nt s , how e ve r , w e r e m a de pur s ua ntt o a c om pl e t e d a nd va l i d gui l ty pl e a ; R i a s c os di d notw i thdr a w hi s pl e a , nordi d he pl ea d n ol o con t endere. R ul e 410 thu s does notappl y t o h i s s t at em ent s, w hi ch w er e adm i ss i bl e. 6 . Se v e r a nc e M o t i o ns8

D e f e n d a n ts J im e n e z a n d Z ap a tac h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f th e ir s e ve r a nc e m ot i ons tha tw e r e ba s e d on a dm i s s i on of D e f e nda ntR i a s c os ’ s pr i or c onvi c t i on. D e f

e nda ntZ apa t aa l s o c ha l l e nge s the de ni a l of hi s s e ve r a nc e m ot i on th a t w a s b a s e d o n th e te s tim o n y ab o u t h is c o - d e f e n d a n t’s in a d m is s ib le s ta te m e n t. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of as e ve r a nc e m ot i on f

ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n . U

ni te d State s v . St i ns on , 64 7 F . 3d 11 96 , 12 05 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( en b a n c ) . W e h o ld th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in e ith e rs itu a tio n . F i r s t , a r gum e nt s aboutthe pr os e c ut i on’ s c l os i ng a r gum e nt s a nd c r os s e xa m i na t i on ar e notfa ctual l y s up po rt ed i n the re cord. S ec on d, the di stri ctcourtprov i ded co m p l et e an d ex h au st i v e l i m i t i n g i n stru ct i o n s. T h i rd , th e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se ar gu m ent s f

ai l for the re as on s pre vi ou sl y di sc usse d. N ei ther Z apat a nor Ji m enez ha s c a rr i e d the bur de n of s how i ng he di d notr e c e i ve af a i rtr i a l , ortha tthe l i m i t i ng in s tru c tio n s w e r e in a d e q u a te . Se e U ni te d State s v . J

ohns on , 2 9 7 F .3 d 8 4 5 , 8 5 5 ( 9 th C i r. 20 02 ). 7. S e n t e n c i n g I n f

or m at i on W e r e vi e w de novo the s uf f i c i e nc yof

as e nt e nc i ng i nf

orm a t i on unde r21 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 . U

n ite d S ta te s v . M

a y fie ld , 4 1 8 F .3 d 8 9 5 , 1 0 1 9 - 2 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . D e f e nda ntR i a s c os ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt orne ym us tpe r s ona l l ys i gn9

the penal ty i nform at i on i s m er i t l es s and has no b as i s i n the st atut e. W e hol d there w as no error. 8 . Se nt e nc i ng D e f e nda ntZ apa t ac l a i m s the di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o c ons i de rhi s m i t i ga t i on a r g u m e n ts a n d m a d e im p r o p e rs ta te m e n ts r e g a r d in g h is r ig h t to c o u n s e l. W e r e v ie w s e n te n c e s f

o rp r o c e d u r a l a n d s u b s ta n tiv e r e a s o n ab le n e s s . U ni ted Stat es v. Ca r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 9 3 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s s e n te n c in g d e c is io n s f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Id . Z apa t a ’ s a r gum e nt s f i nd no fa ctual supp orti n the re cord and are meri t l es s. U nd erei ther s t andard of revi ew p o s e d b y th e p a rtie s , th e s e a r g u m e n ts f a il. 9 . S u p erv i sed R el ea se D e f e n d a n t R ia s c o s c h a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e v o c a tio n o f h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e f

r o m h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n , r e s u ltin g in a n a d d itio n a l th irty m o n th s’ im p riso n m en t (ru n n in g co n cu rr en tl y) . W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s d e c is io n to r e v o k e ate rm o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted State s v . V

e rduz c o, 3 3 0 F .3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . R i as cos c l ai m s r evocat i on w as i m prop erbecause he di d n otre ce i ve prop er not i c e unde r18 U . S . C . §§ 3583( f ) or3603( 1) . I f

the not i c e r e qui r e m e nt s of §§ 3583( f ) a nd 3603( 1) a r e notm e t , r e voc a t i on i s s t i l l appr opr i a t e i f the de f e nda nt10

r e c e iv e d a c tu a l n o tic e o f h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e te rm s . U ni te d State s v . O r tegaB r ito , 311 F . 3d 1136, 1138 ( 9th C i r . 2002) . T he r e c or d c ont a i ns no e vi de nc e of a c tua l not i c e , a nd s o w e va c a t e the thi rtyc onc urr e ntm onths a dde d t o D e f e nda nt R i a s c os ’ s s e nt e nc e . W e not e tha ta nyc l a i m s tha tD e f e nda ntR i a s c os w a s noton s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e a t th e tim e o f th e o f f e n s e a r e m e r itle s s . See U ni ted Stat es v. R am i rez- Sa nchez , 3 3 8 F .3 d 9 7 7 , 9 7 9 - 8 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . B ecau se w e fi n d n o rev ersi b l e erro r, w e d o n o td i stu rb th e j u d g m en t s ag ai n st a n y d e f e n d a n t. A F F I R M E D i n p ar t , V A C A T E D i n p ar t , an d R E M A N D E D f or c or r e c t i on of D ef en d an t R i ascos’ s s en te n ce .1

U . S. v. Jim en ez , N o. 11- 30265 U . S. v. R ias c os , N o. 11- 30282 U . S. v. R ias c os , N o. 11- 30283 U .S. v. Z a p a ta , N o. 12- 30028 R aw l i n son , C i rc u i t Ju d ge, con cu rr i n g i n p art an d d i ss en ti n g i n p art: I c onc uri n the c onc l us i ons of the m a j or i tydi s pos i t i on tha ts uf f i c i e nt e vi de nc e s upport e d the c onvi c t i ons , tha ta dm i s s i on of the e xpe rta nd l a yt e s t i m ony w a s w i thi n the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s c r e t i on, tha tthe c us t odi a l s t a t e m e ntof D e f e nda nt M i gue l J i m e ne z w a s vol unt a ry , tha tthe gui l typl e as t a t e m e nt s m a de byD e f e nda nt N iv a ld o R ia s c o s w e r e a d m is s ib le , th a t th e s e n te n c in g in f o rm a tio n c o m p lie d w ith 21 U . S . C . § 8 51 , and thatthe se nt ence i m po se d u po n D ef endantH ec t or Z apat a w as p r o c e d u r a llya n d s u b s tan tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . I do n otconcur i n the concl usi on thatthe re vo ca t i on of R i as cos’ supervi se d r e le a s e w a s im p r o p e r . R i as cos’ supervi se d rel ea se w as re vo ked d ue t o h i s vi ol at i on of the st andard cond i t i on thathe no tcom m i tany f eder al , st at e or l ocal cr i m e w hi l e on sup ervi se d re l ea se . R i as cos m ai nt ai ns thatbecause he had no no t i ce of thi s s t andard c o n d itio n , it c a n n o t s e rv e a s th e b a s is f o rr e v o c a tio n o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . H ow e ve r , R i a s c os ’ j udgm e ntof c onvi c t i on gi ve s not i c e of thi s c ondi t i on i m m e di a t e l y be l ow the he a di ng of S U P E R V I S E D R E L E A S E . I n a ddi t i on, our prec edentperm i t s us t o i m pu t e kno w l edge of a prohibi t i on on further c ri m i nal 

# FI LED MA Y17 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

a c tiv ityb y th e r e le a s e e . Se e U ni te d State s v . Si m m ons , 81 2 F . 2d 56 1, 56 5 (9th C i r. 1 9 8 7 ). Iti s o n l y “ w hen . . . the pr os c r i be d ac t s ar e not c r i m i nal ,” th a t ac tual no t i ce is r equi re d . Id . ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . B ec ause I a m of the vi ew thatou r pre ce denti s c on si st entw i th the di stri ct co u rt’s re v o ca ti o n o f s u p er v ised re leas e, I w o u ldaf firm th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntw i thoutr e m a ndi ng t o va c a t e the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d upon R i a s c os fol l ow i ng re vo ca t i on of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se .