T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 2035 v. ( D . N ew M exi co) A A RO N TH O M A S G A TES,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 1 0 7 9 RB)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a)(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. A aron T ho m as G at es appe al s hi s conv i ct i on for con spi racyt o p ossess ma r ij u a n a a n d a c tu a l p o s s e s s i o n o f ma r ij u a n a wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e . He cont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tpl ai nl yerr ed i n al l ow i ng D rug E nfor cement-2-

A dm i ni s t r at i on ( “D E A ”) A gentT eni l l e K i ns eyt o t es t i fyr egar di ng a pr evi ous conver s at i on s he had w i t h M r . G at es ’ s codefendanti n w hi ch the code fenda nt im p li ca ted M r. G ates. B ec au se M r. G ates c an n o t est ab li sh p lai n erro r, w e a ffirm hi s convi ct i on. I . BA CK GR OUND A . T he C heckpoi ntSt op O n February16, 2005, B or derPat r ol A gentD ani el R om er o w as on dut yat t he I nt er s t at e 25 che ckpoi ntl ocat ed north of Las Cruc es , N ew M exi co, w hen a gr ayH onda A ccor d w i t h O kl ahoma pl at es dr ove thr ough the che ckpoi nt . A gent R om er o y el l ed atM r . G at es , t he dr i ver , t o s t op. M r . G at es w as tr avel i ng fr om A r i zona w i t h hi s fr i end J uan Y anez . A ft erM r . G at es s t opped the ca r , B or der Pat r ol A gentFl or enci o M ont el l ano’ s drug- det ect i ng cani ne al er t ed t o the trunk of the c ar. A gentR om er o as ked M r . G at es i f he w as carry i ng anythi ng i n the trunk, and M r . G at es r epl i ed he w as not . M r . G at es cons ent ed t o a s ear ch of the trunk. W hen A gentM ont el l ano opene d t he trunk, he t es t i fi ed thata s tr ong odorof ma r ij u a n a wa s p r e s e n t . Ag e n tM o n t e l l a n o fo u n d th r e e b u n d l e s o f ma r ij u a n a , two i ns i de a duffel bag. T he duffel bag w as i ns cr i bed w i th “G at es , U . S. M . C . , U ni t ed St at es M ar i ne C orps . ” R ec. vol . I I I , T r . at26- 27. T he age nt s al s o found a l oaded .3 5 7 m a g n u m re v o lv e r i n th e tru n k .-3-

A tt he t i m e of hi s arr es t , M r . G at es w as a ca deti n the U ni ver s i tyof O kl ahoma A r m yR O T C pr ogr am. H e had s erved i n the U ni t ed St at es M ar i ne C o rp s , w a s a b o u t to s ta rt o n a n o th e r m ilita ry c a re e r a s a n o ffic e r i n th e A rm y . H avi ng compl et ed the R es erve O ffi cerT r ai ni ng Pr ogr am, he w as t o s t ar tO ffi cer T rai ning S cho ol on A pri l 11 , 20 05 . M r. G at es, w ho had been com m i ssi on ed as a sec o n d li eu tena n t i n the A rm yo n D ec em b er 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , w o re h is m il it ary camoufl age uni form , al t hough he w as nei theron m i l i t aryor der s noron the A rm y ’s p a yro ll a t th e tim e o f th e a rr e s t. M r. G a tes w a s e m p lo y e d p a rt-tim e a s a se c u rityg u a rd . A c c o rd in g to h is t e s t i mo n y , h e wa s s c h e d u l e d t o s t o p th a tj o b a n d t o g o o n a c t i v e d u tyi n th e Ar my o n F e b ru a ry 2 1 , w o rk in g a s a c a m p u s re c ru ite r. B . M r. G a tes ’s P o st-A rre st S tate m e n ts A g e n t M o n tella n o tes tifie d th a t, i n a p o st- Mi r anda i nt ervi ew , M r . G at es t ol d hi m t hathe knew t he mar ij uana w as i n the vehi cl e, butcl ai m ed thati tdi d not bel ong t o hi m . A ccor di ng t o A gentM ont el l ano, M r . G at es al s o admi t t ed thathe le t M r. Y a n e z lo a d it in to h is c a r. D E A Speci al A gentK i ns eyt es t i fi ed thats he r es ponded t o the ca l l atthe chec kpoi ntand i nt ervi ew ed M r . G at es and M r . Y anez . A ccor di ng t o her tes tim o n y , M r. G a tes to ld A g e n t K in se yth a t M r. Y a n e z a sk e d h im if h e w o u ld h e lp d riv e th e v e h icle f ro m O k lah o m a to T u c so n to p ick u p th e m a riju a n a in e x c h a n g e fo r $ 1 ,5 0 0 . M r. G a tes a d m itt e d th a t th e re v o lv e r fo u n d in th e v e h icle-4-

bel onged t o hi m . M r . G at es al s o t ol d A gentK i ns eythathi s w i fe ha d l eftthr ee w eeks be fore and t hat theyhad fi nan ci al problem s. D ur i ng di r ectexami nat i on, A gentK i ns eyw as as ked i f s he had s ubm i t t ed th e m a riju a n a b u n d le s fo r fin g e rp ri n t a n a lysis . Id. at46. A gentK i ns eys ai d that she had no tdo ne so. W hen asked w hyno t , A gen tK i nseyres po nd ed: i n“B ecause I h a d tw o c o n v e rs a tio n s . I k n e w w h o th e d o p e — th e m a riju a n a b e lo n g e d to . I di dn’ tneed t o fi ngerpr i nti t . ” Id. T he pr os ecut i on t hen as ked “di d M r . G at es or M r . Y anez cl ai m t o l oadi ng t he mar ij uana?” A gentK i ns eyr es ponded, “N o. T hey di d not . ” Id. C . M r . Y anez ’ s T r i al T es t i m ony M r . Y anez t es t i fi ed thatabouta w eek be for e the arr es t , he made a rr a n g e m e n ts w ith a n o th e r f ri e n d to p ic k u p a lo a d o f m a riju a n a in T u c s o n . A ccor di ng t o M r . Y anez , he had be en fr i ends w i th M r . G at es forthr ee y ear s and t hathe trus t ed M r . G at es m or e than anyof hi s otherfr i ends . M r . Y anez t es t i fi ed th a t h e d e c id e d to a s k M r. G a te s to d ri v e h im to T u c s o n to p ic k u p th e m a riju a n a . A tt he t i m e, M r . Y anez di d nothave a vehi cl e ora dr i ver ’ s l i cens e. M r . Y anez to ld a g e n ts h e w a s to b e p a id a b o u t $ 3 ,0 0 0 , b u t at tria l h e tes tifie d h e e x p e c ted to be pai d $1, 500 t o t r ans por tt he l oad of mar ij uana. H e pl anned t o s pl i tthe money
w ith M r. G a te s . M r. Y a n e z tes tifie d th a t M r. G a tes p ick e d u p M r. Y a n e z in O k lah o m a C ity on t he af

t ernoon of February15, 2005. W hen theyarr i ved i n T ucs on, M r . G at es-5-

and M r . Y anez t ook t he vehi cl e t o a s hoppi ng cent erw her e i tw as pi cked up a nd l oaded bya per s on named “D i nken. ” Id. at 75 -77 . N eith er M r. Y an ez n o r M r. G a te s w e re p re s e n t w h e n th e v e h ic le w a s lo a d e d . D . T he W r i t t en St at ementSi gned byM r . Y anez D ur i ng a courtpr ocee di ng aft erthei rarr es t , M r . G at es gave M r . Y anez a w ritten sta tem e n t an d a sk e d h im to sig n it. T h e sta tem e n t sa id th a t M r. G a tes d id notknow aboutt he mar ij uana unt i l theyarr i ved atthe che ckpoi ntand thatatno t i m e befor e the bor ders t op di d M r . G at es have a nyknow l edge a boutthe pr es ence of m ar ij uana i n hi s car . M r . Y anez t es t i fi ed thati f he s i gned the s t at ement , he tho u g h t M r. G ates w o u ld tak e re sp o n sibil ityfo r th e g u n fo u n d in the ca r. M r. Y a n e z sig n e d th e d o c u m e n t, w h ich w a s a d m itt e d a t trial. E . M r. G at es’ s defen se I n addi t i on t o cr os s - exami ni ng t he governm ent ’ s w i tnes s es , defe ns e couns el pr es ent ed evi dence t hatM r . G at es dr ove hi s fr i end t o A r i zona be caus e he thought M r . Y anez w as cons i der i ng pur chas i ng a vehi cl e ther e. M r . G at es t es t i fi ed he w as pl anni ng t o vi s i thi s s i s t eri n Phoeni x, and, on r edi r ect , A gentK i ns eyr eca l l ed s om e ment i on of a s i s t ert her e. M r . G at es al s o cl ar i fi ed thathe di d know about the m arij u an a, bu t no t befo re M r. Y an ez told h im ab o u t i t atthe c h ec k p o int. M r. G at es t es t i fi ed i n hi s defe ns e, as di d hi s then- s epar at ed s pous e, and both t es t i fi ed aboutM r . G at es ’ s cl ean r ecor d and the unl i kel i hood thatM r . G at es w oul d be-6-

i nvol ved i n t he s cheme, gi ven the r el at i vel ys m al l amount of m oneyand the hi gh
r i s k of t arni s hi ng hi s r ecor d. E . Pr ocedur al backgr ound A fe d e ra l g ra n d ju ryin d icte d M r. G a tes a n d M r. Y a n e z fo r c o n sp ira c yto pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e l es s than 50 ki l ogr ams of mar ij uana, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846, and forpos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e l es s than 50 k ilo g ra m s o f

m a riju a n a , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ) a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(D ). T h e g ran d juryalso ind ict ed M r. G ates fo r ca rry ing a fir ea rm d u ri n g a n d in re la tio n to a d ru g tr a ffic k in g o ffe n s e , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 92 4(c) (1) (A )( I) . M r. Y anez p l eaded gu i l tyt o the charges. B efo re the ca se w as su b m itted to the ju ry , the d istri ct co u rtg ran ted M r. G ates’s m o ti o n fo r j u d g m en t of ac q u ittal o n the fir ea rm ch arg e. T h e jury convi ct ed M r . G at es on bot h t he drug char ges . T he di s tr i ctcour ts ent ence d G at es t o 21 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , a s ent ence s i x- m onths bel ow the l ow end of the gu i deli ne rang e. M r. G at es now t i m el yapp eal s. I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r. G ates raises o n e c o n tention o n d ir ec t app ea l: that A g en t K inse y ’s te s tim o n yim p ro p e rl yre fe rr e d to a p ri o r c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n t m a d e b yM r. Y a n e z . B ec au se M r. G ates fail ed to raise this arg u m en t attr ial , w e re v iew fo r plain e rror.

“ P lain e rro r o c c u rs w h e n th e re is (1 ) e rro r, (2 ) th a t is p lain , w h ich (3 ) a ffe c ts su b sta n tial rig h ts, a n d w h ich (4 ) se rio u slya ffe c ts th e fa irn e ss , inte g rity , o r p u b lic-7-

r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B ow en , 437 F. 3d 1009, 1021 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). Tom e v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 1 3 U . S . 1 5 0 , 1 5 5 -16 6 (19 9 5 ), pr ovi des thatpr i or cons i s t ents t at ement s offe r ed t o r ebuta cha r ge aga i ns tthe dec l ar antof r ece nt fa b r i c a t i o n a r e o n l ya d mi s s i b l e u n d e rF e d e r a l Ru l e o f Ev i d e n c e Ru l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( B) i f the dec l ar antm ade the s t at ement s befor e the al l eged mot i ve t o fabr i cat e ar os e. W e agr ee w i t h M r . G at es t hati tm aybe pos s i bl e t o i nferthe natur e and s ubs t ance of A gentK i ns ey ’ s pr evi ous conver s at i on w i th M r . Y anez . H ow ever , w e nee d not d e c i d e wh e t h e rt h e p r e v i o u s c o n v e r s a t i o n v i o l a t e d F e d . R. Ev i d . 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( B) becau se M r. G at es cann ot es t abli sh t hat anyerr or affect ed h i s subst anti al ri gh t s. F o r th is re a so n , w e h o ld th a t ev e n a ss u m in g a rg u e n d o th a t M r. G a tes c o u ld
m eett he fi r s tt w o pr ongs of pl ai n err oranal y s i s , he has fai l ed t o s how thatthe i m pactof the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s al l eged e rr oraffect ed hi s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . A s the Supr eme C our tnot ed i n Uni t ed Stat es v. O lano , i n m os tcas es the det erm i nat i on t hatan err orhas affect ed s ubs t ant i al r i ght s “means thatthe err orm us thave be en p reju d ic ia l: I t m u s t h a v e a ffe c te d th e o u tc o m e o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro c e e d in g s .” 507 U . S. 725, 734 ( 1993) . “I ti s the defendantr atherthan the G overnm entw ho bear s t he bur den of pe r s uas i on w i th r es pectt o pr ej udi ce. ” Id. M r . G at es has fai l ed t o s how thatA gentK i ns ey ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng a pr evi ous conver s at i on affect ed the j ury ’ s ver di ct . N otonl ydi d A gentK i ns ey t est i fyt hat M r. G at es t old her he kn ew of the presence of the m arij uan a, bu tal so-8-

B order Patr ol A gen tM on t el l ano t est i fi ed that , w hil e he w as processi ng M r. G at es, M r . G at es t ol d hi m t hathe knew aboutthe pr es ence of m ar ij uana. I n addi t i on, M r. Y a n e z tes tifie d a s to M r. G a tes ’s in v o lv e m e n t in th e c o n sp ira c ya n d o f h is k n o w le d g e o f

th e p re s e n c e o f

m a riju a n a th a t w a s in M r. G a te s ’s o w n d u ffe l b a g . T her e w as m or e than s uffi ci entevi dence s uppor t i ng hi s convi ct i on. Fur t herm or e, M r . G at es ’ s couns el had eve ryoppor tuni tyt o cr os s - exami ne t he p rosecut i on ’s w i t nesses, and i nd eed, tho rough l ydid so. In part i cular , defe nse couns el cr os s - exami ned M r . Y anez r egar di ng hi s s i gned s t at ementacc ept i ng r es pons i bi l i t yfort he mar ij uana, and s tr es s ed thatM r . G at es ’ s onl yknow l edge of the m arij u an a w as a fter M r. Y an ez told h im itw as in the c ar. T h e juryco n side red all o f th e a b o v e e v iden ce , cre d it ed the p rose cu ti o n ’s
w i t nesses, and fou nd M r. G at es guil ty . G i ven the am ou nt of evidence ag ai nst him , M r. G at es cann ot es t abli sh t hat anyerr or affect ed h i s subst anti al ri gh t s. I I I . CO NC L US I ON A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM M r . G at es ’ s convi ct i on. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge