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 intiff-Appe lle e ,
v. M AR KEY R

AYM OND OLLOQUE, De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50435

D.C . No. C R

11-00780-GW

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ge orge W

u, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d June 4, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, Se nior Distric t Judge

. ** M a rke y Olloque (“ Olloque”) w a s c onvic t e d of posse ssion with inte nt to distribute a t le a s t five gra m s o f m et h am p h e t a m ine , se e 21 U.S.C

. § 8 41(a )(1) a n d (b)(1)(B )(viii), p osse ssion of a fire a rm i n furthe ra nc e o f a drug tra ffic king c rim e , se e 

# FIL ED

JUN 25 2014
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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm a n, Se n i or Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.18 U.S.C

. § 9 2 4 ( c) ( 1)(A)(i), a nd posse ssion of a fire a rm a nd a m m u nition by a
co nvic te d fe lon, se e 1 8 U.S.C

. § 922(g)(1). Olloque wa s se nte nc e d to fifte e n y e a r s in c u stody . This a

ppe a l followe d. 1. During de fe nse c ounse l’ s v oir dire , one prospe c tive juror indic a te d tha t she wa s “ bothe r[e d] ” by the re a s ona ble doubt sta

nda rd a nd a nothe r juror indic a te d tha t he or she “ pa

rtly a gre e [d] ” with the first juror. Afte r d e fe nse c ounse l a ske d e a c h juror if the y c ould se t as i de the ir pe rsona l fe e lings a nd a pply the a

ppropria te le ga l
sta nda rds, ne ithe r juror indic a te d a ny unwillingne ss or ina

bility to do so. M ore ove r, the d istric t c o urt e xte nsive ly disc usse d the re a sona

ble doubt sta

nda rd throughout the

v oir dire proc e e dings a nd q ue s tione d the jurors a

bout the i r a

bility to se t a side pe rsona l opinions a

nd follow the c ourt’ s instruc tions. The re c ord doe s not indic a te t ha t de fe nse
c ounse l m ove d to e x c use the jurors for c a use or e xe rc ise d a ny

pe re m ptory c ha lle n ge with re spe c t to those jurors. Unde r the se c irc um sta

nc e s, Olloque fa ile d to m e e t his burde n to “ show tha t the

e vide nc e of pa

rtia l ity be fore the distric t c ourt wa s so indic a tive of im pe rm issible juror bia s t ha t the c o urt w a s oblige d to strike [ t h e p r o s pe c tive juror] from t he jury , e v e n though ne ither c ounse l m a de the re que st.” S e e Unite d State

s v . M itc he ll , 5 68 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th C ir. 2009). Inde e d , Olloque d id no t m o v e t o dism iss t he jurors for

c a use a nd, be c a

use de fe nse c ounse l fa i le d to ide ntify the prospe c tive jurors by num be r
2for the re c ord, Olloque c a nnot e ve n show tha

t e ithe r prospe c tive juror wa s se a te d on the p e tit jury

. 2. W he n p o lic e o ffic e rs a rrive d to s e a rc h his hote l room , O lloque re trie v e d

a loa de d ha

ndgun a n d a ba g of m e tha m phe ta m i ne a

n d thre w both obje c ts ou t of his hote l room ’ s ba throom window in the a pproxim a te ly 2.5 m inute s tha t e la pse d from whe n offic e rs first knoc ke d o n the door a nd whe n Olloque a n d his girlfrie nd c a m e out of the ba throom

. In the hote l room , offic e rs disc ove red $ 2 10 in Unite d Sta te s
c urre nc y , a m e tha

m phe ta m ine pipe , te n . 38 c a libe r spe c ia l b ulle ts, two digita l sc a le s,
one m e c ha

nic a l s c a le , a s witc h

bla de , e le ve n .22 calibe r bulle ts c onta ine d in a sa fe , a
c a m oufla ge d ha

ndgun holste r, a bla c k buc k knife , a nd fa l se ide ntific a tion doc um e n ts. Olloque ha d be e n sta

y ing a t the h ote l for a

pproxim a t e ly thre e week s a nd the front de sk c le rk te s tifie d tha t va rious pe o ple w o uld fre q

ue n t ly c om e up t o Olloque ’ s room , but would not sta

y long. An e xpe rt witne ss a lso t e stifie d tha t guns a nd knive s a re
c om m only use d by drug de a le rs for prote c tion, a n d tha t drug de a le rs ofte n

ha ve fa ke ide n tific a tion c a

rds so a s to c onc e a l the ir true ide ntitie s from la w e nforc e m e nt. Unde r the s e c irc um sta

nc e s, vie wing the e vide nc e a nd d ra wing the infe re nc e s in the light

m ost fa v ora

ble to the prose c ution, the jury co u ld ha ve found the “ in furthe ra nc e of”

e le m e nt of 1 8 U.S.C

. § 924(c ) to be sa tisfie d be y ond a re a sona b le doubt. Se e J

ac k son

3v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); U nite d State

s v . He c tor , 474 F.3d 1150, 1157-58 (9th C ir. 2007). 3. Fina lly , Olloque fa ile d to file a tim e ly w r itte n re sponse a fte r the p r o s e c utor file d a n inform a tion a lle ging tha t h e ha d thre e prior fe lon y d r u g
c onvic tions, s e e 2 1 U.S.C

. § 851, inc luding a c onvic tion for posse ssion of a c ontrolle d substa nc e while a rm e d with a fire a rm in viola tion of C a l ifornia He a lth a nd S af ety C ode § 1 1370.1. Any c ha l l enge not ra ise d by re sponse to a n i nform a tion is wa ive d unle ss good c a

use for fa iling to do so is shown. Se e 21 U.S

. C. § 8 51(c )(2); Unite d State s v . Ste phe ns , 3 5 F.3d 451, 453 (9th C ir. 1994). N o suc h showing ha s be e n m a de he re . Inde e d, Olloque stipula te d that h e w a s c onvic t e d o f the fe lony a n d

a c knowle dge d the c onvic tion in the se nte nc ing he a ring. AFFIRM E D.

4