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. AAR ON M UNGIT HU,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10270

D.C . No. 1:15-c r-00243-JM S-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii J. M ic ha e l Se a

bright, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 13, 2018 * * Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, C L IFTON, a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Aaron M ungit Hu c ha lle nge s his c o nvic tion for posse ssion of
m e tha m phe tam ine and he roin with inte nt to distribute

within 1000 fe e t of a

n 

# F IL ED F EB 15 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).e le m e nta

ry sc hool. Se e 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a)(1), 860(a ). B e c a use the fa c ts a

re known to the

pa rtie s, we re pe at

the m only a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our de c ision. I Vie we d in thelight most fa vora b le to the gove rnm e nt, the e vide nc e pre s e nte d at tria l wa s suffic ie nt to a llow a rationa l juror to find tha

t Hu’ s c rim e wa s c om m itte d within 1000 fe e t of a n e le m e nta

ry sc hool. Se e Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 874 F.3d 1078, 1080 &n.2 (9th C ir. 2017) (sta nda rd for re vie wing suffic ie nc y of the e vide n c e ). Age nt Dituro te s tifie d tha t his se c ond m e a sure m e nt wa s shorte r tha n the first be c a

use he inte ntiona lly

wa lke d a m ore dire c t pa

th to thesc hool the
se c o nd tim e . A rationa l juror c ould ha ve c re dite d

Dituro’ s e xpla

nation a nd
a c c e pte d his se c ond m e a sure m e nt a s a c c urate . Furthe r, the slight inac c ura c y of the
m e a suring whe e l ove r the c o urse of a 400-m e te r spa

n doe s not unde rm ine Dituro’ s
m e a sure m e nts. Eve n if five fe e t we re a d de d to Dituro’ s se c ond m e a sure m e nt, the dista nc e be twe e n

the arre st siteand the sc h ool would still be le ss tha n 1000 fe e t. Fina lly , with or without re fe re nc e to the tria n gle the ore m

of ine qua lity , a

rationa l juror c ould ha

ve c onc lude d tha

t the stra ight-linedista

nc e be twe e n the sc h ool a

nd

2the a

rre st sitewould ha

ve be e n e ve n

shorte r tha

n the indire c t pa

th tha t Dituro
m e a sure d. 1 II The distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to give a le sse r-inc lude d

instruc tion did not
c onc lusive ly

de te rm ine tha

t the e vide nc e wa s insuffic ie nt to support the 1000-foot
e le m e nt of Hu’ s c rim e . To givethe instruc t ion, thec ourt wa s sim p ly re quire d to
c onc lude tha

t a rationa l juror c ould find tha t Hu wa s guilty

of the le sse r offe nse but not the gre ate r— i.e
. , tha

t a juror c ould rationa lly

find tha t Hu posse sse d

the drugs with theinte nt to distribute the m , but tha

t he did so m ore tha

n 1000 fe e t

from the
sc hool. Se e Unite d State

s v . C row e , 563 F.3d 969, 972 (9th C ir. 2009). The
c ourt’ s obse rvation tha

t a rationa l juror c ould ha

ve found in Hu’ s favor on the 1000-foot e le m e nt doe s not show tha t the e vide nc e wa s insuffic ie nt to support the jury ’ s a c tua l finding in fa vor of the gove rnm e nt. AFFIRM E D.

1 The re le va

nt dista nc e for the sta

tute is “ a stra ight linem e a s ure m e nt” rathe r tha n “ any ‘ pe de stria

n’ route of tra

v e l.” Unite d State

s v . W atson , 887 F.2d 980, 981 (9th C ir. 1989). 3