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. KR ISTHEL SAR

AH B E LTR

ANFLORE S, De fe nda

nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50560

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-01081-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 Subm itte d De c e m

be r 8, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW

and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd GONZALEZ ROGER S, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED DEC 22 2017 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 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).

* * * The Honora

ble Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion.Kristhe l Sa rah B e ltra n-Flore s (B e ltra

n) a p pe a ls he r c o nvic tion a

nd se nte nc e for one c ount of knowingly or inte ntiona lly

im porting a c ontrolle d substa

nc e , m e tha m phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 & 960. W e a ffirm
. 1. Eve n a ssum ing tha t the jury should ha

ve be e n instruc te d tha

t it wa s suffic i e nt for B e ltra

n to know tha

t the substa

nc e wa s “ a c ontrolle d

substa nc e ” inste a d of “ som e kind of a prohibite d drug,” any e rror wa s ha rm l e ss. B e ltra

n c la im e d not to know tha

t the m e tha

m p he tam ine wa s in thespa

re tire , not tha

t she be lie ve d tha

t the substa

nc e wa s not m e tha

m phe tam ine , or tha

t it wa s not a
c ontrolle d substa

nc e . Inde e d, she stipula

te d tha t the substa

n c e wa s
m e tha m phe tam ine . The re is no re a son to be lie ve , ba se d on the c irc um s ta ntia l
e vide nc e , tha

t the jury ’ s de libe rations a nd guilty ve rdic t a rose from anything other tha n its de te rm ination tha

t B e ltra n kne w tha

t m e tha m phe tam ine , a

c o ntrolle d substa nc e , wa s in the spa

re tire
. 2. The jury

instruc t ion tha

t “ The gove rnm e nt is not re quire d to prove that the de fe n da

nt kne w tha

t he r a c t s or om issions were unla wful,” did not
c ontra ve ne Mc Fadde n v . Unite d

State s , 135 S. C t. 2298 (2015). C ontra ry to B e ltra n’ s a rgum e nt, Mc

Fadde n ’ s re quire m e nt tha t the gove rnm e nt prove a de fe nda nt’ s knowle dge tha

t the substa

nc e wa s a c ontrolle d

substa nc e doe s not im ply tha t the g o ve rnm e nt m

u st prove tha

t a de fe nda nt kne w that the ir c onduc t wa s
2ille g a l. Se eMc Fadde n , 135 S. C t. at 2304 (sta ting e xpre ssly

tha t ignora n c e of the la w c ontinue s to be no e x c use ). And in a ny e ve nt, Mc

Fadde n is not c le arly irre c onc i la

ble with binding Ninth C irc uit a uthority a pproving suc h a

n instruc tion. Se e Unite d State

s v . C ain , 130 F.3d 381, 384 (9th C ir. 1997). 3. The jury

instruc t ion tha

t “ It doe s not m atte r whe the r the de fe nda nt kne w tha t the substa

nc e wa s m e tha

m phe tam ine ,” did not c onstruc tive l y am e nd the indic tm e nt. Eve n though B e ltra n wa s indic te d for knowingly an d inte ntiona lly im porting a substa nc e c onta ining a

de te c ta b le am ount of m e t

ham phe tam ine , no e vide nc e wa s a dm itte d nor wa s a ny argum e nt m a de tha

t B e ltra n kne w tha

t the re wa s a non-m e tha

m phe t am ine c ontrolle d substa nc e in the spa

re tire
. Se e Unite d State s v . W ard, 747 F.3d 1184, 1191 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ [D] e te rm ination of whe the r
a c onstruc tive am e n dm e nt ha s be e n e ffe c te d re quire s se nsitivity to both the

jury instruc tions a s a

re fle c tion of theindic tm e nt, a nd to thenature of the proof offe re d
at tria l.” ). 4. B e ltra

n ’ s argum e nt tha

t the pa ne l should re a d a

re c k le ssne ss m e ns re a re quire m e nt into 21 U.S.C . § 960(b) is squa re ly fore c lose d by Unite d State s v . J e ffe r son , 791 F.3d 1013, 1015–16 (9th C ir. 2015). Thepa ne l de c line s he r invita t ion to sua

sponte c a ll this c a se e n ba nc to re c o nside r J

e ffe r son , a nd he r

3atte m

pt to distinguish J

e ffe rson ignore s its c l e ar holding— the re is no m e ns re a re quire m e nt for se c tion 960(b). Id. 5. In re sponse to the pre se nte nc e inve stiga tion re p ort (“ PSR ” ) tha

t
re c o m m e nde d no a djustm e nt for B e l tran’ s role in the offe n se , B e ltra n’ s c ounse l file d a se nte nc ing m e m orandum urging thec ourt to a

pply a m i nor role a djustm e nt. The distric t c ourt did not me ntion B e ltra n’ s a rgum e nt a t se nte nc ing. Howe ve r, the distric t c o urt’ s sile nc e did not viola te Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 32(i)(3)(B ). B e l tran’ s c o unse l’ s first substa ntive sta te m e nt a t se nte n c ing wa s tha

t he ha d re vie w e d the PSR , ha d no obje c tions to it, a nd ha d not file d a

se nte nc ing
sum m ary c ha rt be c a use he a gre e d with thec ha rt pre pa re d by the gove rnm e nt a

nd probat ion, whic h

did not inc lude a

m inor role a djustm e nt. B e l tran ’ s c o unse l the re by wa ive d a ny disputera ise d by

his se nte nc i ng m e m orandum an d re lie ve d the distric t c o urt of its duty

to e xplic itly

re solve suc h dispute s. Se e Unite d State s v . Pe tri , 731 F.3d 833, 841 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ R u le 32(i)(3)(B ) pe rta ins only to
unre solv e d obje c tions to the

pre se nte nc e re p ort.” (e m pha sis a dde d)); c

f. Unite d State s v . J ob , 871 F.3d 852, 870 (9th C ir. 2017)
. Notwithsta n ding thewa ive r, ide a lly , the distric t c ourt would ha ve ve rifie d tha

t the writte n obje c tions we re withdra wn. AFFIRM E D.
4