T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T hi s pa ne l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** oral ar gu m ent . F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e R a l ph R . B e i s t l i ne , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe *** D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 1

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. AL VA R O MUR I L L O, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50499

ME MORA ND UM *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n V . W i l s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J une 8, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: TR OTT, RYM ER , Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n dBE I ST LI NE, *** 1 D i stri ctJudg e. 

# FI LED JU L 08 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T h e fact s o f th i s case an d th e p ro ced u ral h i st o ry are k n o w n t o th e p art i es. A ppe l l a ntappe a l s the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof C al i forni a’ s dec i si on conv i ct i ng A pp el l anton four charges . A pp el l antcl ai m s that the D i s tr i c tC ourtc om m i tt e d tw o e rr or s dur i ng the tr i a l pr oc e e di ngs tha tw a rr a nt r e ve r s a l : c om m e nt i ng on A ppe l l a nt ’ s gui l ta nd vouc hi ng f ora l l of the G ov ernm ent ’ s c oo pera t i ng w i tness es . D es pi t e notobj ec t i ng t o ei ther a l l eged err or, A p p e lla n t a r g u e s th a t b o th f a ilu r e s c o n s titu te p la in e rr o r , a n d th a t th is c o u r t s h o u ld vaca t e A pp el l ant ’ s c on vi ct i on s and re m and thi s c as e f or a new tri al . T he court a f f i rm s the l ow e rc ourt ’ s de c i s i on. S tan d ard of R evi ew W he n ade f

e nda ntf a i l s t o obj e c tt o a l l e ge d j udi c i a l m i s c onduc tdur i ng a tr i a l , s uc h m i s c onduc ti s r e vi e w e d f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M or ga n, 376 F . 3d 1002, 1007 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S pr i nge r , 51 F . 3d 861, 864 n. 1 (9th C i r. 19 95 )) . U nd erF eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re R ul e 52(b), an ap p e lla te c o u rt c a n “r e c o g n iz e a‘p la in e rr o rth a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts ,’ e v e n if the cl ai m of error w as ‘ no tbrou gh t ’ t o the di stri ctcourt ' s ‘ att ent i on . ’ ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M a r c us , _ U . S . _, 130 S . C t . 2159, 2164 ( 2010) ( quot i ng P uc ke ttv. U n ite d S ta te s , _U .S . _ , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 4 2 3 , 1 4 2 9 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ) . T h e r e f o r e , in o r d e rto s u c c e e d in p r o v in g th e o c c u rr e n c e o f p la in e rr o r , a n ap p e lla n t m u s t d e m o n s tr a te3

“th a t ( 1 ) th e r e is a n ‘e rr o r ’; ( 2 ) th e e rr o ris ‘c le a ro ro b v io u s , r a th e rth a n s u b je c t to re as on abl e di sput e’ ; (3) the error ‘ af fe ct ed the appel l ant ' s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s, w hi ch i n the ordi naryca se m eans’ i t‘ af fe ct ed the ou t com e of the di stri ctcourt p r o c e e d in g s ’; a n d ( 4 ) ‘th e e rr o rs e r io u s ly a f f e c t[ s ] th e f

a irn e s s , in te g r ity o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f

ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .’” I d . H o w e v e r , ar e v e r s a l is o n ly w a rr a n te d “if perm i tt i ng the conv i ct i on s t o st and w ou l d res ul ti n a m i sc arri age of j ust i ce . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . F u c h s , 2 1 8 F .3 d 9 5 7 , 9 6 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . D i s c u s s i on A p p e lla n t c o n te n d s th a t th e c o u r t s ta te d th a t h e w a s “o b v io u s ly ” g u ilty w he n the c ourtc om m e nt e d on aw i tne s s ’ s t e s t i m ony . A ppe l l a nt ’ s c ont e nt i on, how e ve r , i s m e r e l y am i s r e a di ng of the r e c or d: T he c our tdi d notc om m e nton A p p e lla n t’s g u ilt. I ti s c l e arf

r om r e a di ng the tr a ns c r i ptof the he a r i ng tha tthe “ he ” i n the c our t ’ s s t a t e m e ntw a s the w i tne s s , notA ppe l l a nt . T he c our tw a s m e r e l y de s c r i bi ng i t s vi e w on w ha tthe w i tne s s w a s doi ng i n a ns w e r i ng the G ove rnm e nt ’ s que s t i on of w h o w as th e w itn es s’s c o -c o n sp irato r o r p o ss ib ly co m m en ti n g o n th e w itn es s’s ow n a dm i tt e d gui l t . T he c ourtw a s s e e ki ng t o pr e ve ntthe w i tne s s f r om opi ni ng th at A p p ellan t w as g u il ty in an sw er in g th e G o v er n m en t’ s q u es ti o n . A p p ellan t’ s a r g u m e n t f

a ils .4

A p p ellan t’ s a rg u m en t th at th e c o u rt’s v o u ch in g fo r th e G o v er n m en t’ s w i tne s s e s c ons t i tut e s pl a i n e rr orl i ke w i s e f a i l s . T he c our t ’ s vouc hi ng di d not c ons t i tut e as truc tur a l e rr ortha tw oul d aut om a t i c a l l y f ul f i l the thi r d pr ong of

the

“ pl ai n err or” s t andard because such error w as no tse ri ou s or gra ve. F urtherm ore, the vouc hi ng di d nota f

f e c tA ppe l l a nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s be c aus e s uc h vouc hi ng d idn o t “ af

fe ct th e o u tco m e o f th e d istrict co u rt p ro ce ed in g s.” T h e c o u rt’s num e r ous i ns truc t i ons t o the j ury c onc e rni ng the i rr ol e a s the f i na l f a c tf i nde ri n the c a s e o b v ia te d a n y a d v e r s e im p a c t th e c o u r t’s m ild a n d is o la te d v o u c h in g c o u ld have cause d. U ni t ed S t at es v. S anchez- L op ez , 87 9 F . 2d 54 1, 55 1-53 (9th C i r. 19 89 ). M orever, the ca se w as no tcl ose, as the evi dence agai nstA pp el l antw as ove rw he l m i ng. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F r e de r i c k, 78 F . 3d 1370, 1378- 79 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . K e rr , 9 8 1 F .2 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ) . A dd i t i on al l y, the court ’ s vou chi ng di d n otse ri ou sl y a ff ec tthe j ud i ci al p ro ce ed in g s. A p p ellan t fails to p ro v e th at su ch v o u ch in g af fe cted th e ju ry ’s v er d ict. C o n se q u en tl y, itw o u ldn o t b e a “m isca rr iag e o f ju stice” fo r A p p ellan t’ s conv i ct i on t o st and d ue t o the w ei gh tof the evi dence agai nsthi m and the m yr i ad ju ry in s tru c tio n s g iv e n b y th e c o u r t. F u c h s , 2 1 8 F .3 d a t 9 6 3 . C on c l u s i on A p p e lla n t’s p la in e rr o ra r g u m e n ts f a il. T h e d e c is io n o f

th e lo w e rc o u r t is5

A F F I R M E D .