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.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w i tho utoral ar gu m ent . S ee F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e J e d S . R a kof f , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or * * * the S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 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 . J OH NN Y G ARCI A- PE RE Z , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10360 D C N o . 4 : 0 9 - c r - 0 2 5 3 9 - CK J - J CG 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 C i ndy K . J or ge ns on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J ul y 19, 2011 * * S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f or e : T A S H I M A a nd R A W L I N S O N , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd R A K O F F , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. *** 

# FI LED AU G 02 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

O n M a r c h 31, 2010, aj ury c onvi c t e d de f e nda nt - appe l l a ntJ ohnny G a r c i a - Pe r e z ( “ G a r c i a ” ) o f o n e c o u n to f

i l l e g a l r e e n try i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U . S. C. 13 26 . G ar ci a now appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on , cont endi ng thatthe di stri ctcourterre d by : ( 1) de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s c e r t a i n s t a t e m e nt s , ( 2) de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f oram i s tr i a l a f

t e raw i tne s s i ns i nua t e d tha tG a r c i aha d ac r i m i na l r e c or d, a nd ( 3) p e rm ittin g th e w a rr a n t o f r e m o v a l to b e a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e a t tr ia l o v e rh is obj e c t i ons f

orhe a r s a y , l a c k of

f ounda t i on a nd a uthe nt i c a t i on, a nd f orvi ol a t i on of th e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se. W e affi rm th e d i stri ctco u rti n al l resp ect s. T urni ng f

i r s tt o the m ot i on t o s uppr e s s , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on t o s uppr e s s i s r e vi e w e d de novo, butthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s unde r l y i ng f a c tua l f i ndi ngs ar e r evi ew ed for c l ea r e rr or. U ni t ed S t at es v. M ay er , 56 0 F . 3d 94 8, 95 6 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). “W h er e th er e a re tw o p er m issib le v iew s o f th e e v id en ce , th e f ac tfin d er ’s c hoi c e be tw e e n the m c a nnotbe c l e a r l y e rr one ous . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W orki ng, 224 F . 3d 1093, 1102 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( e n ba nc ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n thi s c a s e , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n con cl ud i ng thatthe defendanthad b ee n p roperl y a dv i se d o f h is M ir a n d ar ig h ts a n d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t’s s ta te m e n ts w e r e v o lu n ta r ily m a d e . A gentV al enzuel a, the on l y w i tness t o t es t i fyatthe supp re ss i on hear i ng , t es t i fi ed tha the a dvi s e d the de f

e nda ntof hi s M i r a ndar i ght s i n S pa ni s h both be f or e the i nt e rvi e w a nd a f

t e rthe i nt e rvi e w w he n the a ge ntpr e s e nt e d the de f e nda ntw i th a3

w ri tt en st at em en tt o si g n . T h ere i s n o ev i d en ce o f co erci o n an d n o th i n g t o su g g est thatthe defendant ’ s s t at em ent s w er e i nv ol un t ary. W e thu s a ff i rm the di stri ct c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s th e s ta te m e n ts h e m a d e to A gentV al enzuel a. T urni ng t o the m ot i on f oram i s tr i a l , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on f oram i s tr i a l i s r e vi e w e d f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a ge ge , 437 F .3 d 9 4 3 , 9 5 8 - 5 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . I n th is c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng G ar ci a’ s m ot i on . A s a n i ni t i al m att er , i ti s f arfr om cl ea r that th e w itn e s s ’s s ta te m e n t a llu d in g to th e d e f e n d a n t’s c r im in a l r e c o r d w a s a t a ll pr e j udi c i a l . A l l the j ury he a r d w a s “ I f the r e ’ s no c r i m i na l r e c or d” be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our ti nt e rrupt e d the w i tne s s be f or e he c oul d c ont i nue . E ve n a s s um i ng ar gu endo thatthe j ury w as abl e t o i nferfr om thi s s t at em entthatthe defendanthad ac r i m i na l r e c or d, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n c onc l udi ng tha tthi s i na dve r t e nt c o m m e n t w a s h a rm le s s a n d th u s d id n o t w a rr a n t am is tr ia l. T urni ng t o the de ni a l of de f e nda nt ’ s m ot i on t o e xc l ude the w a rr a ntof re m ov al , al l eged vi ol at i on s of the C on fr on t at i on C l ause ar e r evi ew ed de no vo , se e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Vi l l a v i c e n c i o - B u rru e l , 6 0 8 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 0 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) , b u twe re vi ew evi dent i ary rul i ng s, such as a f i nd i ng thatevi dence i s s up po rt ed by a proper f ounda t i on ori s a uthe nt i c , f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a ng, 3624

F . 3d 11 87 , 11 91 (9th C i r. 20 04 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. T ank, 20 0 F . 3d 62 7, 63 0 (9th C i r. 2000) . T he a dm i s s i on of the w a rr a ntof

r e m ova l di d notvi ol a t e the C onf r ont a t i on C la u s e b e c a u s e aw a rr a n t o f r e m o v a l is n o n - te s tim o n ia l a s “it [ is ] n o t m a d e in a nt i c i pa t i on of

l i t i ga t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a he na - C a r de na s , 411 F . 3d 1067, 1075 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . O r o z c o - A c o s ta , 6 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 6 3 ( 9 th C i r. 20 10 ) ( “ [N ] ei ther aw arra ntof re m ov al ’ s s ol e purpo se no r e ven i t s pri m ary p u rp o s e is u s e a t tr ia l.” ) . W e f u r th e rc o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in fi nd i ng thatthe w arra ntof re m ov al w as prop er l y authent i ca t ed as a pub l i c r ec ord un der F ed. R . E vi d. 90 1(7) because R ul e 901 “ do es no tre qu i re pers on al k n o w le d g e o f

ad o c u m e n t’s c r e a tio n , b u t r a th e ro n ly p e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e th a t a doc um e ntw a s pa r tof

a n of f i c i a l f i l e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E s tr a da - E l i ve r i o, 583 F . 3d 669, 673 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W hi l e the w a rr a ntof r e m ova l c ont a i ne d s t a t e m e nt s of im m ig r a tio n a g e n ts w h o d id n o t te s tif y a t tr ia l, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its di s c r e t i on i n c onc l udi ng tha tthe s e s t a t e m e nt s f a l l w i thi n the publ i c r e c or ds exce pt i on t o the hears ayrul e bec ause they c on st i tut e “ m i ni st er i al , obj ec t i ve” o b serv at i o n s th atw ere reco rd ed i n th e co u rse o f th e i m m i g rat i o n ag en t s’ gove rnm e nt a l dut i e s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L oy ol a - D om i ngue z , 125 F . 3d 1315, 1317- 18 ( 9th C i r . 1997) . C f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r gue t - P i l l a do, 560 F . 3d 1078,5

1086 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( hol di ng tha ts t a t e m e ntw i thi n pe rm a ne ntr e s i de ntappl i c a t i on tha tw a s m a de by the appl i c a nt ’ s f a the rw a s i na dm i s s i bl e he a r s a y be c a us e the appl i ca nt ’ s f

ather “ had n o g ov ernm ent al du t i es ”) . W e have consi dere d the appel l ant ’ s a dd i t i on al ar gu m ent s a nd concl ud e that th e y la c k m e r it. A FFI R M ED .