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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T 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. P AN C HO J OS E P H G AR C I A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 10403 D. C. No . 4 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 9 1 4 - FR ZJC G -2 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona F r a nk R . Z apa t a , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y 6, 2013 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W . F L E T C H E R , G O U L D , an d C H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e f e nda nt - A ppe l l a ntP a nc ho G a r c i a c ha l l e nge s hi s c onvi c t i ons i n vi ol a t i on o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 3 ( a ) ( o f f e n s e s c o m m itte d w ith in I n d ia n c o u n try ) f o rtw o c o u n ts of A s s a ul tw i th a D a nge r ous W e apon w i th I nt e ntt o do B odi l y H a rm unde r18 

# FI LED MA Y17 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

U . S . C . § 113( a ) ( 3) a nd one c ountof U s e of a F i r e a rm D ur i ng a nd i n R e l a t i on t o a C r i m e of V i ol e nc e unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) . G a r c i a c ha l l e nge s the adm i ss i on of l aw enforce m entexpertt es t i m on y, the suff i ci encyof the evi dence, the deni al of j ust i fi ca t i on and m i st ake j ury i nstruct i on s, and the i m po si t i on of the § 9 2 4 ( c ) s e n t e n c e . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a f f i r m. a . E xpe r t T e s t i m ony G ar ci a c hal l enges the adm i ss i on of l aw enforce m entexpertt es t i m on y a s i rr e l e va nt . W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o a dm i tore xc l ude e vi de nc e f or ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . U

ni te d State s v . E dw ar ds , 23 5 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 78 (9th C i r. 20 00 ); s e e al

s o U ni te d State s v . R e dl i

ghtni ng , 624 F . 3d 1090, 1110 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( c i t i ng U ni te d State s v . Hi nk

s on , 5 8 5 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 6 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) ) . W e onl y f

i nd tha ta di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i f , de s pi t e appl y i ng the c o rr e c t le g a l ru le , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ap p lic a tio n o f th e ru le w a s illo g ic a l, i m pl a us i bl e , orw i thouts uppor ti n i nf e r e nc e s tha tm a y be dr a w n f r om f a c t s i n the r e c o r d . R e dl i

ghtni ng , 624 F . 3d a t1110. A nd w e m a y onl y r e ve r s e f ora n abus e of di s c r e t i on w he r e s uc h a nonc ons t i tut i ona l e rr orm or e l i ke l y tha n nota f f e c t e d the v e r d ic t. E dw ar ds , 23 5 F . 3d at11 78 . H er e, any e rr or i n adm i tt i ng the expert t est i m o n y o n typ i cal b u rg l ari es w as h arm l ess.3

b. S uffi ci encyof the E vi dence G a r c i a c l a i m s the r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

orthe j ury t o f

i nd tha the i nt e nde d t o ha r m the vi c t i m s . W e r e vi e w de novo the de ni a l of a R ul e 29 m ot i on f o ra c q u itta l. U

ni te d State s v . R i

ggi ns , 40 F . 3d 10 55 , 10 57 (9th C i r. 19 94 ). “ T here i s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s uppor ta c onvi c t i on i f , r e vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ght m os tf a vor abl e t o the G ove rnm e nt , a ny r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the es se nt i al el em ent s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” U ni ted Stat es v. L opez - P at i no , 391 F . 3d 1034, 1038 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng U ni ted Stat es v. H erna nd ez , 105 F . 3d 1330, 1332 ( 9th C i r . 1997) ) . E vi de nc e a ttr i a l , i nc l udi ng G a r c i a ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the f i r e d a gun a tthe c a ri n w hi c h the vi c t i m s w e r e r i di ng, prov i ded a suff

i ci entbasi s f

or the j ury t o con vi ctG ar ci a. c . J ury I ns truc t i ons G ar ci a c hal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s r ef usal t o g i ve hi s r equest ed j ust i fi ca t i on and m i st ake- of-f ac tj ury i nstruct i on s. W e r evi ew the deni al of a p r o p o s e d ju ry in s tru c tio n f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

n ite d S ta te s v . H

e r e d ia , 483 F . 3d 913, 921 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . G a r c i a w a s note nt i t l e d t o a j us t i f i c a t i on i ns truc t i on be c a us e he c a n pr ovi de no l e ga l rul e tha tw oul d j us t i f y hi s c onduc t . G a r c i a w a s not e nt i t l e d t o a m i s t a ke - of

- f a c ti ns truc t i on be c aus e none of the a l l e ge d m i s t a ke s of4

fa ctnegat ed hi s c ul pabi l i ty; even i f the fa ct s had been as he cl ai m ed t o b el i eve, G ar ci a s t i l l coul d h ave been found gu i l ty of the offens e. d. D oubl e J e opa r dy B e c a u s e G a r c iad id n o t o b je c t b e lo w , w e r e v ie w f o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni ted State s v . Zalapa , 509 F . 3d 1060, 1064 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . G a r c i a ’ s doubl e j e opa r dy a r gum e ntf

a i l s be c a us e S e c t i ons 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) a nd 113( a ) ( 3) e a c h r e qui r e pr oof o f a t le a s t o n e f

a c t th a t th e o th e rd o e s n o t. See U ni ted Stat es v. G on zal ez , 800 F . 2d 8 9 5 , 8 9 7 - 9 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . G a r c ia ’s le g is la tiv e in te n t a r g u m e n t f a ils . See S . R e p. N o. 98 -225 , at31 3 n . 8 (19 84 ). AF F I RME D.