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 E R IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. B ILLY M IR

ANDA FLORE S, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30078

D.C . No. 3:09-c r-05810-R B L-1 M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 7, 2013 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, GILM AN ** , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. B illy M iranda Flore s (“ Flore s” ) wa s c onvic te d of c onspira c y to distribute oxy c odone , in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C
. §§ 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(C ), a nd 846; thre e c ounts 

# FIL ED AUG 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble R ona ld Le e Gilm an, Se nior C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.of distribution of oxy c o done , in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(C ); one c ount of posse s sion with inte n t to distribute

m e tha done , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(C ); a

nd one c ount of posse ssion of a fire a rm in furthe ranc e of posse s sion with inte

nt to distribute

m e tha done , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 924(c )(1)(A). The distric t c ourt se nte nc e d Flore s to 240 m onths im prisonm e nt— 180 m onths for thedrug c ha rge s and 60 m onths for thefire arm c ha rge , im pose d c onse c utive ly . He a ppe a ls his c onvic t ion on thefire a rm c ha rge and his se nte nc e . In this m e m oran dum disposition, we c onside r only

Flore s’ s c ha lle nge s to his c onvic t ion for posse ssion of a fire arm in furthe ranc e of the
m e tha done c ha

rge . In a c onc urre ntly

file d opinion, we

a d dre ss Flore s’ s se pa

ra te c ha lle nge s to his sente nc e . S e e Unite d State

s v . Flore s , __F.3d__ (9th C ir. 2013). W e re c ite he re only

the fa c ts ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our m e m oran dum de c ision. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd 18 U.S.C
. § 3742(a ). W e a ffirm the judgm e nt of c onvic tion. I Flore s first c onte nds the distric t c ourt e rre d in a dm itting the

te stim ony

of a la w e nforc e m e n t a ge nt tha

t drug tra ffic ke rs ofte n c arry guns for prote c tion. W e disa gre e .
2The re c ord indic ate s tha t the Drug Enforc e m e nt Adm inistra tion (“ DEA” ) a ge nt te stifie d a s a

la y witne ss, not a s a

n e xpe rt witne ss, a

nd tha t he te s tifie d ba se d on his e xpe rie nc e , whic h is a prope r ba s is for la

y opinion te stim o ny . Se e Fe d. R
. Evid. 701 a dvisory

c om m i tte e ’ s note (2000) (disc ussing distinction be twe e n la y and e xpe rt opinion te stim ony ). W e re v ie w a dm ission of la y opinion te s tim o ny

for a buse o f disc re tion. Unite d State s v . Martine

z , 657 F.3d 811, 818–19 (9th C ir. 2011). R ule 701 of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of Evide nc e provide s tha t la y opinion te stim ony is limite d to opinions: “ (a ) ra tiona lly ba se d on the witne ss’ s pe rc e ption; (b) he lpful to c le arly

unde rsta nding thewitne ss’ s te stim ony or de te rm ining a

fa c t in issue ; a nd (c ) not ba s e d on sc ie ntific , te c hnic a l, or othe r spe c ia liz e d knowle dge within thesc ope of R

u le 702.” The DEA a g e nt’ s te stim ony sat isfie s e a c h of the re quire m e nts of R ule 701 of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of Evide nc e . First, thea ge nt wa s fam i lia r with drug inve stiga tions a nd fire arm s, a

nd his te stim ony

wa s rationa lly ba se d on his pe rsona l knowle dge and first-ha

nd obse rvations from

pre vious drug inve stiga

tions. S e e Martine z , 657 F.3d a

t 818–19 (upholding a

dm i ssion of la

y te stim ony

by a form e r m e m b e r of the M e xic an M a fia on the m e aning of c ode d c om m unic ations be c a

use

“ [f] rom long e xpe rie nc e in writing note s for the orga niz ation, thewitne ss ha d the

3‘ p e rsona l knowle dge ’ re quire d by ” the Fe de ra l R ule s of Evide nc e ); U

nite d State

s v . Durham , 464 F.3d 976, 982–83 (9th C ir. 2006) (a llowing la y te stim ony

tha t a substa nc e the witne ss obse rve d be i ng use d wa s m arijua na ). Se c ond, the DEA a ge nt’ s te stim ony

wa s he lpful to “ t

he de te rm ination of a

fa c t in issue ,” i.e
. , whe the r Flore s use d a

fire arm “ in furthe ranc e of” a

drug offe nse or, a s Flore s te stifie d at tria l , m e re ly

he ld the gun a s c olla

te ra l for a m one y loa n to his fa t he r. Fe d. R . Evid. 701(b); se e also United State s v . VonW

illie , 59 F.3d 922, 929 (9th C ir. 1995) (c iting Fe d. R
. Evid. 701(a), (b)). Fina lly , the a g e n t’ s obse rvation tha t drug tra ffic ke rs ofte n posse ss we a p ons for prote c tion is c o m m on e nough a

nd re quire s suc h lim ite d e xpe rtise tha

t it is a dm issibleunde r R

ule 701. Se e VonW

illie , 59 F.3d at 929 (upholding a

dm i ssion of a

n offic e r’ s la

y te stim ony

tha t it is c om m on for drug tra ffic ke rs to posse ss a nd use we a

pons to prote c t

the ir drugs a

nd to intim

idate buy e rs). W e are pe rsua de d tha t the distric t

c o urt a c te d within its disc re tion in a dm itting the

DEA a ge nt’ s te stim ony . II Flore s ne xt a

rgue s tha t the e vide nc e pre se nte d to the jury wa s not suffic ie nt to support his c onvic tion for posse ssion of a fire arm in furthe ran c e of the
m e tha done c ount. W e disa gre e .
4Whe re , a s he re , a de fe n da nt fa ils to m ove for a c quitta l during trial, our re vie w is limi te d to pla i n e rror or to pre ve nt m anife st injustic e . U nite d State

s v . Singh , 532 F.3d 1053, 1056–57 (9th C ir. 2008); Unite d State s v . Ross , 338 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th C ir. 2003). “ The e vide nc e is suffic ie nt to support a c onvic tion if, vie w ing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution, a

ny ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c o u ld ha

ve found the e s se ntia l e l e m e nts of thec rim e be y ond a re a s ona ble doubt.” Unite d S

t ate s v . De aring , 504 F.3d 897, 900 (9th C ir. 2007) (c ita tion, e m pha sis, a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ). To prove tha

t Flore s posse sse d a

fire arm in furthe ran c e of a drug tra ffic king c rim e in viola

tion of § 924(c )(1)(A), the Gove rnm e nt wa s re quire d to show tha t: (1) Flore s posse sse d m e t

ha done with inte nt to distribute it; (2) Flore s posse sse d the fire arm ; a nd (3) Flore s’ s posse s sion of the fire arm wa s “ in furthe ranc e ” of the drug tra ffic king c rim e . Unite d State s v . Mosle y , 465 F.3d 412, 415 (9th C ir. 2006). He re , Flore s c onte sts only whe t he r the e vide nc e at tria l suffic ie ntly e sta blishe d the “ in furthe ranc e ” e le m e nt. The “ in furthe ranc e ” e le m e nt “ re quire s proof tha t the de fe nda

nt posse sse d the we a

p on to prom ote or fa c ilita te the unde rly ing c rim e ,” a que stion tha t “ turns on theinte nt of the de fe nda nt.” Unite d State s v . K rouse , 370 F.3d 965, 967, 968–69 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding tha t five

5high-c a libe r fire arm s a n d am m unition found in c lose proxim ity to a nd stra te gic a lly loc ate d ne ar substa

ntia l e vide nc e of drug tra ffic king we re suffic ie n t to support the de fe nda n t’ s § 924(c ) c onvic tion). Tha t inte nt c an be infe rre d “ whe n fa c ts in e vide nc e re ve a l a

ne xus be twe e n the guns disc ove re d a n d the unde rly ing offe nse .” Id. at 968. “ Whe the r the re quisitene xus is pre se nt m ay be de te rm ine d by e xam ining, inte r alia , the proxim ity , a c c e ssibility , a nd stra te gic loc ation of the fire arm s in re lation to the loc us of drug a c tivitie s.” Unite d State s v . Rios , 449 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th C ir. 2006) (c iting K r ouse , 370 F.3d a

t 968). He re , the re wa s a

suffic ie nt ne xus be twe e n the fire arm and the m e tha done c ha rge to susta in the jury ’ s ve rdic t. First, thejury found Flore s guilty

of posse s sing a

distributa ble am o unt of m e tha d one , whic h wa s disc ove re d in a sa fe in Flore s ’ s offic e just onefoot a way from the fire arm . Furthe rm ore , the fire arm wa s re a d ily a c c e ssible be c a

use it wa s loc ate d

in a n unloc ke d dra

we r and wa s loa de d. In a ddition, the fire arm

wa s disc ove re d in Flore s’ s offic e , whic h se ve ra l witne s se s te stifie d wa s the prim ary

site , or “ l oc us,” of Flore s’ s drug tra ffic king ope ra t ions. Fina lly , a c ode fe nda

n t te stifie d tha

t Flore s posse s se d a

gun on a t le a st one oc c a sion while de a ling drugs a

nd e n c oura ge d him

to c a rry a we a pon to prote c t him se lf while de a ling drugs for Flore s. Anothe r c ode fe nda nt te stifie d tha

t Flore s told him

the re
6wa s a

gun in thedrawe r of Flore s’ s de sk if the c ode fe nda nt e nc ounte re d a

ny proble m s while de a ling drugs out of Flore s’ s offic e . This indep e nde nt e vide nc e , c ouple d with Flore s’ s te stim ony

at tria l, form s an a d e q uate ba sis for the jury ’ s ve rdic t. Se e Unite d State s v . K e nny , 645 F.2d 1323, 1346 (9th C ir. 1981) (“ Whe n the de fe nda

nt e le c ts to te stify , he runs the risk that if disbe lie ve d, the trie r of fa c t m ay c onc lude tha

t the oppositeof his te stim ony is the truth.” (c iting Unite d State s v . Martine

z , 514 F.2d 334, 341 (9th C i r. 1975); Unite d State s v . C hase , 503 F.2d 571, 573 (9th C ir. 1974))). Vie wing the e v ide nc e in the light m ost fa

vora ble to the prose c ution, thedistric t c ourt did not pla i nly e rr in fa iling to dism

iss the § 924(c )(1)(A) c ount for la c k of e vide n c e . The judgm e nt of c onvic tion is AFFIRM E D .

7