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. KEITH FOSTER ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10496

D.C . No. 1:15-c r-00104-AW I-SKO-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 10, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AYES, * * Distric t Judge
. De fe nda

nt Ke ith Foste r, a

form e r De puty

Polic e C hie f from the Fre sno Polic e De pa

rtm e nt, a ppe a ls his jury

c onvic tions for c o nspiring to posse ss with inte nt to distribute

m arijua na and he roin in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C
. §§ 841(a )(1) and 846. He c onte nds tha

t the e vide nc e wa s insuffic ie nt, tha t his c ounse l wa s 

# FIL ED

JUN 20 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.ine ffe c tive , tha t the jury should ha

ve be e n instruc te d on a

buy e r-se lle r re lationship,
and tha t the c ourt e rre d

in de ny ing his re que st to unse a l juror inform a t ion. For the
re a s ons be low, we a ffirm
. The re is suffic i e nt e vide n c e to support both c o nvic tions. Foster’ s phone
c a lls a n d te xt m e ssa ge s with c oc onspira tors R a fa e l Guz m an a

n d La shon Jone s suffic i e ntly

de m o nstra

te d Foste r’ s role in the c onspira c y to distribute

he roin. Jone s re la y e d he roin orde rs from

buy e rs to Foste r an d a ssure d Foste r that the de a ls would be ne fit both of the m . Foste r disc usse d he roin ty pe s, pric e s, a

nd m e e t ing tim e s with
a supplie r, Guz m an, a

nd re la y e d those de ta i ls ba c k to Jone s . On a n a gre e d-upon date , Foste r a tte m

pte d to m e e t Guz m an

to obta in the drugs, but the de a l fe ll through whe n Jone s did not a nswe r he r phone
. Foste r’ s phone c a lls with his ne phe w De nny

suffic ie ntly

e sta blishe d Foste r’ s role in a c onspira c y to distribute m arijua na . De nny and Foste r disc usse d m arijua na qua ntitie s, m e e ting tim e s, a

nd pric e s, a

nd Foste r re pe a te dly pre sse d De nny for
m one y for Foste r’ s “ b oy .” Afte r late r le arning tha t De nny ha d be e n arre ste d with six pounds of marijua

na in his c ar, Foste r e xpre sse d frustra tion tha t De nny ha d not
a ske d for “ c ove r,” and Foste r sa id tha t he would se e what

his “ na rc guy s” c ould do for De nny .

2Although c ounse l a rgua bly pe rform e d de fic ie ntly

by not m oving for
a c quitta l a fte r the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se in c hie f, Foste r’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of
c ounse l c la im

fa ils be c a

use the re wa s no pre

judic e . The e vide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to support both c onvic tions, so a m otion for a c quitta l would ha ve be e n de nie d. Se e Unite d State s v . Fe ldman , 853 F.2d 648, 665–66 (9th C ir. 1988) (fa ilure to m ove for a c quitta l c annot be the ba sis for a finding of ine ffe c t ive a s sista nc e if the c rim e s of c onvic tion a

re supporte d by suffic ie nt e vide nc e ). C ounse l’ s de c ision not to
re que s t a buy e r-se lle r instruc t ion a ppe ars to be the produc t of stra te gy , not inc o m pe te nc e . S

e e Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 689–90 (1984). The the o ry of the de fe n s e wa s tha

t Foste r wa s inve stiga

ting thea c tivitie s of othe rs in his c a pa c ity a s de puty p o lic e c hie f. A buy e r-se lle r instruc tion would ha ve c la she d with this de fe nse . For sim ila r re a sons, thedistric t c ourt did not err in fa iling to sua sponte instruc t the jury

on a buy e r-se lle r re lationship. Unite d State s v . Montgome r

y , 150 F.3d 983, 996 (9th C ir. 1998)

. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err in de ny i ng Foste r’ s m otion to unse a l juror inform a tion. Although Foste r m ay have suspe c te d

tha t jurors ha d re a d pre j udic i a l ne ws a

rtic le s, the re c ord c onta ins no ba sis for tha t supposition. Spe c ulat ion a lone c annot ove rc om e the pre s um ption of juror im

p artia l ity
. Se e Unite d State s v . C lardy , 540 F.2d 439, 447 (9th C ir. 1976) (finding sim i la r re que st
3frivolous whe re de fe n da n t ha d not shown “that a

ny of the jurors ha d se e n suc h
m a te ria l ” ). AFFIRM E D.

4